-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
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
feat: adds @deepkit/type #895
Conversation
Also, deepkit seems to require at least node v14 (tried that locally and it worked):
To resolve this, we could:
In absence of other options, I'd vote for dropping node 12 benchmarks 😁 |
@BasixKOR I you like, you can also run the tests locally with
If there is no strict validation option for deepkit (I did not found any, tried |
@hoeck Yeah, It seems like Jest allows to do this with
I understood in a completely opposite way 😂 I'll remove the |
Indeed that was worded quite ambiguously, I meant removing the benchmark case 😅 not the test case.
That will help with running the Jest tests but you'd still need a separate setup for running the benchmark? As the oldest LTS release is node 14 now, I am all in favor of dropping node 12 support instead of introducing more build complexity. @moltar any opinions? |
I am in favour of dropping Node v12! |
👍 okay I'll create a PR that drops node 12, after merging, this PR can then be rebased and deepkit tests and benchmarks should work 😀 |
@BasixKOR could you please rebase on the latest master - I have removed node 12, the benchmarks now run on 14, 16 and node 18 only so your PR should pass after the rebase. If you don't have time any more, please let me know and I will take care of this PR. Thanks! |
I rebased the deepkit branch and it should be okay, please lmk if anything is a bit off |
Saves type resolving logic: moltar#895 (comment)
Saves type resolving logic: moltar#895 (comment)
Fixed some remaining rebase issues and uses guard and deserializeFunction now! Unfortunately 'should throw on missing attributes' test is breaking though. |
Could you skip that benchmark then? It is okay if you only implement the benchmarks that deepkit supports. I created separate benchmarks as checking for missing attributes adds some overhead and I wanted to be able to compare libs that perform that extra step. |
Making a draft since I had a hard time running this on my local machine. Aims to resolve #894.