Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add overloads to support passing single string arg to renderStatic #648

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jeremymcintyre
Copy link

@jeremymcintyre jeremymcintyre commented Nov 1, 2024

The renderStatic method from PageForServer supports passing 1-2 arguments. This proposes adding some overloads to reflect the case where a single string argument is passed.

Due to the type ambiguity introduced for the first argument, also adds an additional typeof check. Depending on preference, an else clause could also be added to the first conditional instead.

Examples:

// string only
page.renderStatic('signup');

// number, string
page.renderStatic(401, 'login');

@craigbeck
Copy link
Contributor

craigbeck commented Nov 4, 2024

Looks goos to me. Do you have a code example of the additional overloads that you could add to the PR for documentation purposes?

renderStatic(status?: number, ns?: string) {
renderStatic(ns: string): void;
renderStatic(status: number, ns?: string): void;
renderStatic(status?: number | string, ns?: string) {
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@craigbeck to be honest I'm not sure if it makes sense for this 3rd overload to have an optional first arg. The only reason I marked it as optional is because the original signature showed both args as optional.

If we should always at least pass one arg, then I would update to something like:

  renderStatic(ns: string): void;
  renderStatic(status: number, ns?: string): void;
  renderStatic(arg1: number | string, ns?: string) {

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In derby@3, we changed PageForServer#render, normalize the order of params to be render(ns: string, status?: number):
https://github.com/derbyjs/derby/releases/tag/v3.0.0

Longer term, we should aim to keep renderStatic consistent with that.

Unfortunately, we can only remove the renderStatic(status: number, ns: string) signature in a major version, so for now we'd need to support both signatures, with runtime type detection.

Perhaps something like this?

  renderStatic(ns: string, status?: number): void;
  renderStatic(status: number, ns: string): void;
  renderStatic(arg0: string | number, arg1?: number | string) {
    const ns = typeof arg0 === 'string' ? arg0 : arg1;
    const status = typeof arg1 === number ? arg1 : arg0;
    if (!ns) throw new Error('renderStatic ns param required');

Copy link
Author

@jeremymcintyre jeremymcintyre Nov 7, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @ericyhwang - how would you recommend narrowing the type of ns to string? (I think it will still be typed as string | number after the existence check, and must be a string for the assignment of pageHtml and tailHtml below)

Maybe throw an additional error if ns is not a string? Or change the existence check to a type check?

  renderStatic(ns: string, status?: number): void;
  renderStatic(status: number, ns: string): void;
  renderStatic(arg0: string | number, arg1?: number | string) {
    const ns = typeof arg0 === 'string' ? arg0 : arg1;
    const status = typeof arg1 === 'number' ? arg1 : arg0;
    if (typeof ns !== 'string') throw new Error('renderStatic ns param required');

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also is it okay that in the new overloads there is no overload where both arguments are marked optional, as it is before these changes?

@jeremymcintyre jeremymcintyre marked this pull request as ready for review November 5, 2024 18:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants