Zod Progress #35
Comments
|
As an additional note, I see 2 alternative ways of doing this:
Both approaches would work, just thought it might be good on deciding on one before pursuing this refactor 👍🏼 |
|
I like aliasing since current implementations are pretty close to JSON-schema naming. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
As a part of this issue, we need to propose a way to compatibility of zod API.
issue motivated from #32
here is a list of features that zod has:
superRefinevoid,undefined,function,Set,Map,NaN- possibly it's never be released, since it is not a part of JSON-schema standard - expose empty functions?z.custom)literalasconstsince it's the same #41dateasstring().date()z.string- datetime, it's parametersnativeEnumas a part of theenum(we already handle it, just expose) #38schemawith nameshape(zod exposesshapeinstead ofschema) #43s.deepPartialneed to researchz.stripz.catchallz.array.element#46z.nullish- researchz.lazy- need to researchtransformfunctionz.ZodType<T>typez.promise- uses$asyncschema?z.instanceOf- researchz.preprocessport tos.preprocessz.parseAsyncrefinecompatibilityz.catchz.brandz.pipeAdd comments if I missed something
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: