Use z.ZodType<object> instead of z.AnyZodObject

[dirkluijk]

The current type-definition allows the schema to be only a z.object():

type Config<T extends z.AnyZodObject = z.AnyZodObject> = {
  schema: T;

  // ...
}

How-ever, this means you cannot pass in any other Zod type, e.g. that uses Zod effects like .transform(), .preprocesses() or .refine():

await loadConfig({
    schema: z.preprocess((input) => {
        // do stuff
        return input;
    }, myConfigSchema),
}),

I believe a more correct type-definition, that maintains the restriction of the config to be an object, would be:

type Config<T extends z.ZodType<object> = z.ZodType<object>> = {
  schema: T;
  // ...
}

Since it makes the type-definition less strict, I believe it should be backwards compatible.

The only major issue I see, is that it would not allow zod-config nor any adapter to inspect ZodObject-specific things, for example the shape property. This might be crucial if we want to support #22.

[alexmarqs]

Hi @dirkluijk! It is not currently supported, you are right. Using z.ZodType<object> to allow usage of Zod effects will bring some other limitations like turning the schema ZodEffects and not a typical Zod Object instance. Let me check later the issues that you created to see if this impacts your end goal :).

Note: Looks like in Zod 4 this will be solved colinhacks/zod#2474, in the mean time if you are using a custom adapter you can wrap your config data in a nested property and this one can be used with effects (e.g. { config: z.object(...).refine(....) })

[dirkluijk]

Super cool, didn't know about the issue you mentioned! :)

I think this issue also depends on the directions we discuss in #22.