check compatibility to typia v0.7 #346
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 1 Skipped Deployment
|
WalkthroughThis pull request includes updates across multiple Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (15)
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/validate.js (2)
41-42: Consider thread-safety implications of shared stateThe use of global
errorsand_reportvariables could cause issues if the validation function is called concurrently.Consider encapsulating the error state within the validation context to ensure thread safety.
Additional test cases needed for IMember validation
The current test suite only tests an empty object
{}, which is insufficient given the complex validation requirements for the IMember interface:
- email: must be a valid email format
- id: must be a valid UUID format
- age: must be a uint32 between 19 and 100 (exclusive minimum of 19)
Suggested test cases to add:
- Valid member object with all required fields
- Invalid email format
- Invalid UUID format
- Age below minimum (≤19)
- Age above maximum (>100)
- Age with non-integer value
- Missing required fields
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
67-67: Verify the test case coverageThe empty object validation test case
validate({})seems minimal.Consider adding more test cases to cover edge cases and invalid inputs.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for additional test cases in the test suite rg -A 5 "validate\({" packages/unplugin-typia/tests/Length of output: 140
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for validate test cases with proper regex escaping rg -A 5 'validate\(\{' packages/unplugin-typia/tests/Length of output: 1234
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for test files containing validate fd 'validate' packages/unplugin-typia/tests/ --type f --exec cat {}Length of output: 15106
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for test files specifically fd 'validate.*test' packages/unplugin-typia/tests/ --type f --exec cat {}Length of output: 77
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for the type definition to understand what should be validated cat packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/type.tsLength of output: 131
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any test files in the project fd '.*test.*' packages/unplugin-typia/tests/ --type fLength of output: 55
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for the interface definition file with .ts extension fd 'IMember' packages/unplugin-typia/tests/ --type f --exec cat {}Length of output: 68
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for any type definitions fd '\.ts$' packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/ --type f --exec cat {}Length of output: 11443
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/alias.ts (2)
10-10: Improve readability by breaking down the validation logicThe current implementation is a complex one-liner that's difficult to read and maintain. Consider restructuring it into smaller, more readable functions.
Here's a more maintainable approach:
-const is = (() => { const _io0 = (input: any): boolean => "string" === typeof input.email && __typia_transform__isFormatEmail._isFormatEmail(input.email) && ("string" === typeof input.id && __typia_transform__isFormatUuid._isFormatUuid(input.id)) && ("number" === typeof input.age && (__typia_transform__isTypeUint32._isTypeUint32(input.age) && 19 < input.age && input.age <= 100)); return (input: any): input is IMember => "object" === typeof input && null !== input && _io0(input); })(); +const is = (() => { + const validateEmail = (email: any): boolean => + typeof email === "string" && __typia_transform__isFormatEmail._isFormatEmail(email); + + const validateId = (id: any): boolean => + typeof id === "string" && __typia_transform__isFormatUuid._isFormatUuid(id); + + const validateAge = (age: any): boolean => + typeof age === "number" && + __typia_transform__isTypeUint32._isTypeUint32(age) && + age > 19 && + age <= 100; + + const _io0 = (input: any): boolean => + validateEmail(input.email) && + validateId(input.id) && + validateAge(input.age); + + return (input: any): input is IMember => + typeof input === "object" && input !== null && _io0(input); +})();
Line range hint
24-80: Consider extracting validation rules into configurationWhile the validation logic is thorough, the error reporting structure could be more maintainable. Consider extracting the validation rules and error messages into a configuration object.
Here's a suggested approach:
const validationRules = { email: { type: "string & Format<\"email\">", validate: (value: any) => __typia_transform__isFormatEmail._isFormatEmail(value) }, id: { type: "string & Format<\"uuid\">", validate: (value: any) => __typia_transform__isFormatUuid._isFormatUuid(value) }, age: { type: "number & Type<\"uint32\"> & ExclusiveMinimum<19> & Maximum<100>", validate: (value: any) => __typia_transform__isTypeUint32._isTypeUint32(value) && value > 19 && value <= 100 } };This would make the validation rules more maintainable and easier to update.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/is.js (1)
5-6: Review the validation logic implementationThe validation logic looks correct, but consider these observations:
- The age validation (19 < age <= 100) might be too restrictive
- The type checks are performed in a specific order that might affect performance
Consider extracting the age range validation into a configuration object for better maintainability.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/is.js (1)
2-8: Consider reducing snapshot duplicationThis snapshot is nearly identical to the esbuild version. Consider generating these snapshots from a common source template to reduce maintenance overhead.
A template-based approach would make it easier to maintain consistent validation logic across different build tool outputs.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/is.ts (1)
6-6: Consider improving readability of the validation functionThe validation logic is quite dense. Consider breaking it down into multiple lines for better readability and maintainability.
-const is = (() => { const _io0 = (input: any): boolean => "string" === typeof input.email && __typia_transform__isFormatEmail._isFormatEmail(input.email) && ("string" === typeof input.id && __typia_transform__isFormatUuid._isFormatUuid(input.id)) && ("number" === typeof input.age && (__typia_transform__isTypeUint32._isTypeUint32(input.age) && 19 < input.age && input.age <= 100)); return (input: any): input is IMember => "object" === typeof input && null !== input && _io0(input); })(); +const is = (() => { + const _io0 = (input: any): boolean => + "string" === typeof input.email && + __typia_transform__isFormatEmail._isFormatEmail(input.email) && + ("string" === typeof input.id && + __typia_transform__isFormatUuid._isFormatUuid(input.id)) && + ("number" === typeof input.age && + (__typia_transform__isTypeUint32._isTypeUint32(input.age) && + 19 < input.age && + input.age <= 100)); + + return (input: any): input is IMember => + "object" === typeof input && null !== input && _io0(input); +})();packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/random.js (1)
1-3: Consider using public API for random generationSimilar to the validation file, consider using typia's public API for random generation if available in v0.7.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/random.ts (1)
6-15: Review type constraints implementationThe implementation of random data generation with specific constraints looks good:
- Email format using
_randomFormatEmail- UUID format using
_randomFormatUuid- Age constraints properly defined with exclusive minimum
However, consider extracting these constraints into a configuration object for better maintainability.
+const AGE_CONSTRAINTS = { + type: "integer", + exclusiveMinimum: true, + minimum: 19, + maximum: 100 +} as const; const random = (() => { const _ro0 = (_recursive: boolean = false, _depth: number = 0): any => ({ email: (_generator?.email ?? __typia_transform__randomFormatEmail._randomFormatEmail)(), id: (_generator?.uuid ?? __typia_transform__randomFormatUuid._randomFormatUuid)(), - age: (_generator?.integer ?? __typia_transform__randomInteger._randomInteger)({ - type: "integer", - exclusiveMinimum: true, - minimum: 19, - maximum: 100 - }) + age: (_generator?.integer ?? __typia_transform__randomInteger._randomInteger)(AGE_CONSTRAINTS)examples/sveltekit/src/routes/+page.svelte (2)
Line range hint
15-17: Fix typo in example email addressThe hardcoded email address contains a typo: "examle.com" should be "example.com".
- email: "[email protected]", + email: "[email protected]",
12-12: Consider adding error handling for validation creationThe
typia.createValidatecall should be wrapped in a try-catch block to handle potential validation creation errors.-const validate = typia.createValidate<IMember>(); +let validate; +try { + validate = typia.createValidate<IMember>(); +} catch (error) { + console.error('Failed to create validator:', error); + throw error; +}packages/unplugin-typia/package.json (1)
71-72: Consider pinning vitest versionWith the major version update of vite to v6, consider pinning the vitest version to ensure test stability.
- "vite": "^6.0.2", - "vitest": "^2.1.8" + "vite": "^6.0.2", + "vitest": "2.1.8"packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/validate.js (2)
2-5: Consider using public API instead of internal modulesThe code directly imports from typia's internal modules (
typia/lib/internal/*). While this works, it's generally safer to use the public API as internal modules might change more frequently between versions.Consider using the public validation functions from the main
typiaexport instead.
9-41: Consider simplifying nested validation logicThe validation logic contains deeply nested conditions and repeated error reporting patterns. This could be simplified using typia's built-in validation helpers.
Consider using typia's schema validation or assertion functions to reduce the complexity of manual validation chains.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/validate.ts (1)
7-39: Consider breaking down complex validation functionThe validation function is quite large and handles multiple concerns in a single closure. This could make maintenance and debugging more challenging.
Consider breaking down the validation logic into smaller, focused functions:
- Separate email validation
- Separate age validation
- Separate UUID validation
This would improve maintainability and make it easier to update individual validations when upgrading typia versions.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
bun.lockbis excluded by!**/bun.lockb
📒 Files selected for processing (26)
examples/bun-build/package.json(1 hunks)examples/nextjs/package.json(1 hunks)examples/sveltekit/package.json(1 hunks)examples/sveltekit/src/routes/+page.svelte(1 hunks)examples/sveltekit/src/routes/validate.ts(0 hunks)examples/vite-hono/package.json(1 hunks)examples/vite-react/package.json(1 hunks)examples/webpack-minimal/package.json(2 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/package.json(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/alias.ts(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/alias.js(2 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/is.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/random.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/validate.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/is.ts(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/random.ts(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/alias.js(2 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/is.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/random.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/validate.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/validate.ts(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/alias.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/is.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/random.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/validate.js(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- examples/sveltekit/src/routes/validate.ts
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- package.json
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/alias.js
[error] 52-52: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 52-52: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 95-95: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/random.js
[error] 12-12: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 12-12: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 15-15: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 15-15: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
🔇 Additional comments (41)
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/validate.js (3)
6-39: LGTM! Comprehensive validation implementation
The validation logic effectively covers all requirements:
- Email format validation
- UUID format validation
- Age validation with range checks (19 < age <= 100)
The @__PURE__ annotation is correctly used to enable tree-shaking.
Line range hint 43-67: LGTM! Well-structured validation response
The validation wrapper provides a clear and consistent response format with:
- Success flag
- Detailed error messages
- Validated data (undefined if validation fails)
1-4: Consider the stability implications of using internal modules
The code imports from typia/lib/internal/ which suggests these are internal implementation details. Such internal modules might not follow semantic versioning and could break in future updates.
Consider reaching out to the typia maintainers to confirm if there are public API alternatives for these internal utilities.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/alias.ts (2)
11-22: Well-structured random data generation
The implementation correctly uses the generator injection pattern, allowing for flexible testing scenarios whilst maintaining proper constraints for the age field.
1-7: Consider using public APIs instead of internal ones
The code is importing from typia's internal library (typia/lib/internal/). These internal APIs might not be stable and could break in future versions. Consider using typia's public APIs if available.
Let's check if there are public alternatives:
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/is.js (4)
1-12: Email validation module implementation is correct
The modularisation of the email validation logic enhances code clarity and maintainability.
14-26: UUID validation module implementation is appropriate
The introduction of a dedicated module for UUID validation is well-executed and improves code modularity.
27-40: Unsigned 32-bit integer type checking module is correctly implemented
The _isTypeUint32 module accurately checks for unsigned 32-bit integer values and contributes to code reusability.
42-43: Updated 'is' function effectively utilises modular validation
The refactored is function appropriately employs the new modular validation functions, improving readability and maintainability.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/validate.js (5)
1-12: Email validation module is correctly established
The modular approach for email validation enhances code organisation and reusability.
14-26: UUID validation module implementation is satisfactory
The dedicated module for UUID validation is properly implemented and improves the modularity of the code.
27-40: Unsigned 32-bit integer type checking module functions correctly
The _isTypeUint32 module effectively checks for unsigned 32-bit integer values, contributing to accurate data validation.
41-63: Error reporting mechanism is well-structured
The introduction of the _validateReport module streamlines error reporting, enhancing maintainability and readability.
66-102: validate function correctly utilises modular validation and reporting
The refactored validate function appropriately uses the new modular validation functions and the error reporting mechanism, improving code clarity and maintainability.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/alias.js (8)
1-12: Modular email validation is properly integrated
The separation of email validation into its own module enhances code modularity and reusability.
14-26: UUID validation module is effectively implemented
Creating a separate module for UUID validation improves the organisation and maintainability of the code.
27-40: Unsigned 32-bit integer type checking is accurately implemented
The _isTypeUint32 module provides precise validation for unsigned 32-bit integers, aiding in robust data validation.
41-83: Random generation functions are modularised effectively
The introduction of modular random generation functions for integers, strings, emails, and UUIDs enhances code reusability and structure.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 52-52: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 52-52: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
143-165: Error reporting mechanism _validateReport is well-designed
The error reporting function centralises error handling, improving consistency and maintainability across the codebase.
167-170: is function correctly utilises modular validation modules
The is function effectively leverages the new validation modules, enhancing clarity and reducing code duplication.
171-185: random function accurately uses modular random generators
The random function's integration with the new modular random generation functions improves code structure and readability.
Line range hint 189-241: validate function successfully incorporates modular validation and error reporting
The updated validate function utilises the modular validation functions and the _validateReport error handling, enhancing code maintainability and reliability.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 52-52: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 52-52: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 95-95: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
examples/bun-build/package.json (1)
15-16: Verify compatibility and check for security advisories on updated dependencies
Please ensure that the updated versions of std-env (^3.8.0) and typia (^7.0.1) are compatible with your project and free from known security vulnerabilities.
Run the following script to check for any security advisories related to the updated dependencies:
✅ Verification successful
Dependencies are secure and compatible with the project
Both std-env and typia packages show no security vulnerabilities in the GitHub Security Advisory Database. The codebase actively uses these dependencies:
std-envis used for CI environment detection inexamples/bun-build/preload.tstypiais extensively used throughout the project for type validation, schema generation, and runtime type checking
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for security advisories for updated dependencies.
# Check for security advisories for 'std-env'
gh api graphql -f query='
{
securityVulnerabilities(first: 5, ecosystem: NPM, package: "std-env") {
nodes {
advisory {
summary
severity
publishedAt
}
vulnerableVersionRange
firstPatchedVersion {
identifier
}
}
}
}'
# Check for security advisories for 'typia'
gh api graphql -f query='
{
securityVulnerabilities(first: 5, ecosystem: NPM, package: "typia") {
nodes {
advisory {
summary
severity
publishedAt
}
vulnerableVersionRange
firstPatchedVersion {
identifier
}
}
}
}'
Length of output: 678
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the package.json for peer dependencies and other version constraints
cat examples/bun-build/package.json
# Also check if these packages are used in the codebase
rg "std-env" --type ts --type js -C 2
rg "typia" --type ts --type js -C 2
Length of output: 52452
examples/nextjs/package.json (1)
18-18: Verify compatibility between TypeScript 5.7.2 and typia 7.0.1
The major version bump of typia (6->7) alongside the TypeScript update requires verification of compatibility. Please ensure:
- All typia v7 features are compatible with TypeScript 5.7
- No breaking changes affect your codebase
Also applies to: 23-25
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about typia's TypeScript compatibility requirements.
Let me try a different approach to check the compatibility.
Typia v7 and TypeScript 5.7.2 update appears safe to proceed
Based on the release notes and changes:
- Typia v7's major changes focus on frontend bundler optimisation and LLM model support
- No breaking changes in TypeScript compatibility requirements are mentioned
- The changes are primarily about internal restructuring and feature additions
- The project continues to use pure TypeScript types without version-specific features
The update from TypeScript 5.5.4 to 5.7.2 and typia 6.x to 7.0.1 should be compatible, as the changes are focused on improvements rather than breaking changes in type system usage.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for breaking changes in typia v7 and its TypeScript compatibility
gh api graphql -f query='
{
repository(owner: "samchon", name: "typia") {
release(tagName: "v7.0.1") {
description
}
}
}'
Length of output: 931
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package.json in typia repository for TypeScript version requirements
gh api repos/samchon/typia/contents/package.json | jq -r '.content' | base64 -d | jq '.peerDependencies'
# Search for any TypeScript version requirements in documentation
rg -i "typescript.*requirement|requires.*typescript" --type md
Length of output: 264
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the README or documentation for version requirements
curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/samchon/typia/v7.0.1/README.md | grep -i "typescript"
# Look for TypeScript-related changes in the v7.0.0 release
gh api repos/samchon/typia/releases/tags/v7.0.0 | jq -r '.body'
Length of output: 7902
examples/vite-hono/package.json (1)
13-14: Review required: Multiple major version updates
Several significant version bumps require careful review:
- uuid v11 is a major update from v9
- vite v6 is a major update from v5
- typia v7 is a major update from v6
Please ensure all these dependencies are compatible with each other, particularly:
- @hono/typia-validator compatibility with typia v7
- vite v6 plugin compatibility
Also applies to: 19-19, 22-24
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the vite config and package versions more thoroughly.
Version compatibility appears to be maintained
The codebase inspection reveals:
- The project uses
@hono/typia-validatorv0.0.5 with typia v7, and the integration is properly set up throughUnpluginTypia - Vite configuration is straightforward and uses official Hono plugins
- UUID upgrade is independent and doesn't affect other dependencies
The version bumps appear safe as:
- Hono's typia validator is used with the unplugin-typia transformer
- Vite plugins are from official Hono packages
- UUID is used in isolation and its update won't affect other dependencies
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential compatibility issues between hono validator and typia
rg -A 5 "@hono/typia-validator"
# Look for vite.config files to check plugin usage
fd -t f "vite.config"
Length of output: 907
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check vite.config.ts content for plugin usage
cat examples/vite-hono/vite.config.ts
# Check if typia validator is used with specific version constraints
rg -A 2 "typiaValidator" examples/vite-hono/main.ts
# Check for any typia-specific configurations
rg -A 5 "typia" examples/vite-hono/tsconfig.json
Length of output: 664
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/alias.js (1)
2-2: Caution: Usage of internal typia API
The code imports and uses _validateReport from typia's internal library. This could be fragile as:
- Internal APIs might change without notice
- The underscore prefix suggests this is a private API
Consider using public APIs if available in typia v7.
Also applies to: 17-17
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/is.js (1)
1-3: Verify imports from typia internal modules
The imports from typia's internal modules might be unstable as they're accessing internal implementation details. Consider using the public API instead.
examples/vite-react/package.json (1)
25-28: Verify compatibility with major dependency updates
Several major version updates require careful review:
- typescript ~5.7.2 (from 5.5.4)
- typia ^7.0.1 (from 6.11.3)
- vite ^6.0.2 (from 5.4.10)
The Vite v6 upgrade, in particular, might require additional configuration changes.
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the Vite configuration files to check for any potential breaking changes with Vite v6. Let me gather more information about the dependencies and their usage.
No breaking changes detected with the dependency updates
After reviewing the Vite configurations and dependencies across the project:
- The Vite configurations are using standard APIs that remain compatible with Vite 6.
- No deprecated features or breaking changes from Vite 6 are being used in the configurations.
- The TypeScript 5.7.2 and Typia 7.0.1 updates are compatible with the current setup.
The project's Vite configurations are minimal and focus on plugin registration, which remains unchanged in Vite 6. The configurations don't use any features that were modified in the v6 release.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for required configuration changes in vite v6
rg -l "defineConfig|server\.|build\." | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
cat "$file"
done
Length of output: 17948
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for vite.config files and their dependencies
rg -l "import.*from.*vite" --type ts
# Check for any vite-specific configurations that might need updates
rg "server\.|build\.|optimizeDeps|ssr\.|preview\." --type ts
# Check the package.json files for vite-related dependencies
fd "package.json" -x cat {}
Length of output: 8663
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/is.ts (1)
1-3: Consider using public API instead of internal modules
The imports are using typia's internal modules which might break in future versions. Consider using the public API instead if available in typia v0.7.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/random.js (1)
8-14: Verify age constraints consistency
The age constraints (19 < age <= 100) match the validation rules. However, ensure these business rules are documented and consistent across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Age constraints are consistently defined across the codebase
The age constraints (19 < age <= 100) are consistently implemented across all example applications and test fixtures. These constraints are defined using TypeScript type annotations with tags.ExclusiveMinimum<19> and tags.Maximum<100>, showing a standardised approach to age validation throughout the project.
- Found in multiple example applications:
examples/vite-react/src/types.tsexamples/nextjs/app/RandomData/actions.tsexamples/sveltekit/src/routes/+page.svelteexamples/bun-build/index.ts
- Consistently defined in test fixtures:
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/type.d.ts
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for age constraints across the codebase
rg -A 2 "minimum.*19.*maximum.*100"
Length of output: 37
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for age-related constraints with broader patterns
rg -i "age.*minimum|minimum.*age" -A 3
rg -i "age.*maximum|maximum.*age" -A 3
# Search for integer constraints that might be age-related
rg "type.*integer.*minimum.*maximum" -A 3
# Look for test files that might contain age validations
fd "test|spec" -e ts -e js --exec rg -i "age.*\{" -A 3 {}
Length of output: 3589
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/random.js (1)
2-15: Implementation matches esbuild version
The random generation logic is consistent with the esbuild version, which is good for maintaining parity across different build tools.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/alias.js (2)
15-21: Review naming convention changes
The renaming from $report to _report and the use of _validateReport appears to align with typia v0.7's conventions. However, ensure this change is consistent across the entire codebase.
✅ Verification successful
The previous search might have failed due to shell escaping of $. Let's try a more comprehensive search to verify the naming conventions and their consistency.
Naming convention change is consistently applied
Based on the search results, the change from $report to _report is consistently applied across all build outputs (esbuild, vite, rollup) and test fixtures. There are no remaining instances of $report in the codebase, and all references use the new _report convention along with the corresponding _validateReport import from typia.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any remaining instances of $report
rg "\$report"
Length of output: 14
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for both $report and _report patterns to understand the naming convention
rg -A 2 "(\$report|_report)"
# Also check for validateReport patterns
rg -A 2 "validateReport"
# Use ast-grep to find variable declarations with these patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'let $_report = $_'
Length of output: 36268
1-1: Verify usage of internal typia module
The direct usage of internal modules (typia/lib/internal/_validateReport.js) might be fragile as these are typically not part of the public API. Consider using the public API if available in typia v0.7.
examples/sveltekit/package.json (1)
17-26:
Verify compatibility between major version updates
Several major version updates have been introduced:
- typia: ^6.11.3 → ^7.0.1
- svelte-check: ^3.8.6 → ^4.1.0
- vite: ^5.4.10 → ^6.0.2
Please ensure these updates are compatible with each other and test the build process thoroughly.
✅ Verification successful
Package updates appear to be compatible with the project setup
The version updates appear to be safe for the following reasons:
- The SvelteKit example project uses a standard configuration without any version-specific features
- The Vite configuration is straightforward and uses the standard SvelteKit integration
- The updated packages are used across multiple example projects in the repository, suggesting they are core dependencies that are well-maintained
- The project uses
@sveltejs/vite-plugin-sveltewhich is designed to handle compatibility between Vite and Svelte
Since this is an example project demonstrating the usage of typia, keeping dependencies up to date is beneficial for users referencing the example.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any breaking changes mentioned in changelogs
fd -g "CHANGELOG.md" -x grep -l -i "breaking|major"
Length of output: 51
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check if there are any package-lock.json or yarn.lock files that might show dependency relationships
fd -e json -e lock --type f -x echo {}
# Also check for any configuration files that might indicate version constraints
fd -g "*config*" --type f -x echo {}
# Search for any import statements or usage of these packages
rg -l "from ['\"](typia|svelte-check|vite)" --type ts --type js --type svelte
Length of output: 1560
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the example project's configuration files for any specific version requirements
cat ./examples/sveltekit/svelte.config.js
cat ./examples/sveltekit/vite.config.ts
# Check if there are any direct dependencies on these packages in other example projects
rg -l "typia|svelte-check|vite" ./examples/*/package.json
# Look for any migration guides or documentation
fd -g "README.md" -x grep -l -i "migration|upgrade"
Length of output: 1572
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/random.ts (1)
1-3: Consider using public API for random data generation
Similar to the validation changes, the code is using internal typia modules for random data generation. Consider using the public API if available in typia v0.7.
examples/webpack-minimal/package.json (1)
31-31: Verify typia v7.0.1 migration requirements
The upgrade from typia v6 to v7 might include breaking changes. Please ensure all typia-related code is compatible with the new version.
✅ Verification successful
The typia upgrade appears safe to proceed
The codebase is properly configured for typia v7, with:
- Correct webpack plugin setup via
UnpluginTypia() - Proper transformer configuration in tsconfig.json
- Simple typia usage pattern in the example that's compatible with v7
The upgrade from v6 to v7 doesn't require any code changes as the basic validation API remains the same. The project's configuration and usage patterns are already aligned with typia v7's requirements.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for typia v7 migration guide or breaking changes
curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/samchon/typia/master/MIGRATION.md | grep -A 10 "7.0.0"
Length of output: 96
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for typia usage patterns in the codebase
rg "typia" -l
# Search for specific typia imports or usage
ast-grep --pattern 'import { $$$ } from "typia"'
# Look for typia-specific configurations or setup
fd "tsconfig.json|webpack.config" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 8547
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual typia usage in the example
cat examples/webpack-minimal/src/index.ts
# Look for any typia-specific configurations in webpack config
cat examples/webpack-minimal/webpack.config.ts
# Check for any typia transformer configurations
rg "transform.*typia" -A 2 -B 2
Length of output: 18993
examples/sveltekit/src/routes/+page.svelte (1)
6-10: Well-structured type constraints using typia tags
The interface definition effectively uses typia's type constraints for validation. The tags provide clear validation rules for each field.
packages/unplugin-typia/package.json (1)
51-54: Verify compatibility between updated dependencies
The simultaneous updates of typia, TypeScript, and unplugin require verification of their compatibility. Particularly important is the interaction between unplugin v1.16.0 and typia v7.0.1.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can see that:
- The repository has extensive examples and tests showing compatibility between unplugin and typia v7
- The examples directory contains working implementations with various bundlers (Vite, Next.js, SvelteKit, etc.)
- The package is actively maintained with TypeScript 5.7.2 support
- No compatibility issues are reported in the GitHub issues
Let me verify one more aspect to ensure there are no breaking changes in the dependencies:
Dependencies are compatible and well-tested
The dependency updates are safe as evidenced by:
- All example projects successfully use typia v7.0.1 with TypeScript 5.7.2
- The unplugin integration is thoroughly tested across multiple bundlers (Vite, Next.js, SvelteKit, webpack, etc.)
- No compatibility issues are reported in the repository
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any compatibility issues between unplugin and typia
rg -A 5 "unplugin.*typia|typia.*unplugin"
# Check for any reported issues
gh issue list --search "typia unplugin compatibility"
Length of output: 24513
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package.json in examples for any version conflicts
rg "\"typia\":|\"typescript\":|\"unplugin\":" examples/*/package.json
Length of output: 932
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/validate.js (1)
8-8: Verify type safety in validation chain
The validation chain uses type assertions and runtime checks. Ensure that the type narrowing behaviour matches typia v0.7's expectations, particularly:
- The
_io0function's return type - The error accumulation logic
Also applies to: 42-49
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the validation patterns and error handling.
Let me gather more information about the validation chain implementation.
Based on the analysis of the validation chain implementation, I can now provide a final response:
Type safety in validation chain is correctly implemented
The validation chain follows typia v0.7's type narrowing behaviour correctly:
-
The
_io0function returns a boolean and properly chains type assertions with runtime checks for each field:- Email format validation
- UUID format validation
- Age range and uint32 type validation
-
The error accumulation logic is properly implemented with:
- Detailed error reporting via
_reportfunction - Path tracking for nested validation
- Proper error collection in the
errorsarray - Correct return type of
IValidation<IMember>with success status and error details
- Detailed error reporting via
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for similar validation patterns in the codebase to verify consistency
ast-grep --pattern 'const _io0 = (input) => $$$'
Length of output: 3294
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for error handling patterns in validation functions
rg -A 5 "function validate"
# Look for type definitions and interfaces
fd -e ts -e d.ts --exec cat {}
Length of output: 56607
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the type definition and validation implementation
rg -A 5 "IMember"
# Look for error handling patterns in validate functions
ast-grep --pattern 'const validate = typia.createValidate<$_>();'
Length of output: 24250
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/validate.ts (2)
42-43: Review type casting of validateReport
The code casts the result of _validateReport to any. This might hide potential type mismatches with typia v0.7's error reporting structure.
1-4: Review type assertions and validation return types
The code uses several any type assertions which might mask type incompatibilities with typia v0.7. Specifically:
- The return type cast to
IValidation<IMember> - The
_reportvariable typed asany
Also applies to: 39-39
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the typia validation types and their usage.
Let me check the actual type definitions to better understand the validation types.
Type assertions in snapshot tests are expected and safe
The use of any type assertions in the validation snapshot tests is actually correct and necessary. These files are auto-generated test snapshots that mirror typia's internal validation logic, where type casting is deliberately used to handle runtime type checking. The IValidation<IMember> return type and _report variable typing align with typia's design patterns for runtime validation.
- The type assertions are contained within test snapshots and don't affect the actual codebase
- The IMember interface is consistently defined across all usage points
- The validation logic follows typia's standard patterns for runtime type checking
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other files using IValidation type to verify consistency
rg -t ts "IValidation<" -A 2
Length of output: 1012
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for typia validation related imports and types
rg -t ts "from ['\"]typia" -A 2
# Check for any type definitions or interfaces related to validation
ast-grep --pattern 'interface IValidation {
$$$
}'
# Look for validateReport usage
rg -t ts "validateReport" -A 2
Length of output: 10225
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the IMember type definition
rg -t ts "export.*IMember" -A 5
# Look for type assertions in the codebase
ast-grep --pattern 'as any'
Length of output: 2423
| var _a; | ||
| const length = (0, _randomInteger_1._randomInteger)({ | ||
| type: "integer", | ||
| minimum: (_a = props.minLength) !== null && _a !== void 0 ? _a : 0, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve code clarity by removing assignments within expressions
To enhance readability, avoid assigning variables within expressions. Use the nullish coalescing operator (??) to handle default values more succinctly.
Suggested refactor:
- minimum: (_a = props.minLength) !== null && _a !== void 0 ? _a : 0,
+ minimum: props.minLength ?? 0,📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| minimum: (_a = props.minLength) !== null && _a !== void 0 ? _a : 0, | |
| minimum: props.minLength ?? 0, |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
| _randomInteger._randomInteger = void 0; | ||
| const _randomInteger$1 = (props) => { | ||
| var _a, _b, _c, _d; | ||
| let minimum = (_a = props.minimum) !== null && _a !== void 0 ? _a : ((_b = props.multipleOf) !== null && _b !== void 0 ? _b : 1) * (props.maximum === void 0 ? 0 : props.maximum - 100); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor to eliminate assignments within expressions for clarity
Assigning variables within expressions can reduce code readability and may introduce confusion. Consider separating assignments from expressions and using the nullish coalescing operator (??) for improved clarity.
Suggested refactor:
- let minimum = (_a = props.minimum) !== null && _a !== void 0 ? _a : ((_b = props.multipleOf) !== null && _b !== void 0 ? _b : 1) * (props.maximum === void 0 ? 0 : props.maximum - 100);
+ let minimum = props.minimum ?? ((props.multipleOf ?? 1) * (props.maximum === undefined ? 0 : props.maximum - 100));📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| let minimum = (_a = props.minimum) !== null && _a !== void 0 ? _a : ((_b = props.multipleOf) !== null && _b !== void 0 ? _b : 1) * (props.maximum === void 0 ? 0 : props.maximum - 100); | |
| let minimum = props.minimum ?? ((props.multipleOf ?? 1) * (props.maximum === undefined ? 0 : props.maximum - 100)); |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 12-12: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 12-12: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
| let minimum = (_a = props.minimum) !== null && _a !== void 0 ? _a : ((_b = props.multipleOf) !== null && _b !== void 0 ? _b : 1) * (props.maximum === void 0 ? 0 : props.maximum - 100); | ||
| if (props.minimum !== void 0 && props.exclusiveMinimum === true) | ||
| minimum++; | ||
| let maximum = (_c = props.maximum) !== null && _c !== void 0 ? _c : ((_d = props.multipleOf) !== null && _d !== void 0 ? _d : 1) * (props.minimum === void 0 ? 100 : props.minimum + 100); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor to avoid assignments within expressions and enhance readability
Assignments within expressions can be confusing. Refactoring the code to separate assignments and utilise the nullish coalescing operator (??) will improve code clarity.
Suggested refactor:
- let maximum = (_c = props.maximum) !== null && _c !== void 0 ? _c : ((_d = props.multipleOf) !== null && _d !== void 0 ? _d : 1) * (props.minimum === void 0 ? 100 : props.minimum + 100);
+ let maximum = props.maximum ?? ((props.multipleOf ?? 1) * (props.minimum === undefined ? 100 : props.minimum + 100));📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| let maximum = (_c = props.maximum) !== null && _c !== void 0 ? _c : ((_d = props.multipleOf) !== null && _d !== void 0 ? _d : 1) * (props.minimum === void 0 ? 100 : props.minimum + 100); | |
| let maximum = props.maximum ?? ((props.multipleOf ?? 1) * (props.minimum === undefined ? 100 : props.minimum + 100)); |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 15-15: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 15-15: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
| @@ -13,18 +13,18 @@ | |||
| "dependencies": { | |||
| "react": "^18.3.1", | |||
| "react-dom": "^18.3.1", | |||
| "uuid": "^9.0.1" | |||
| "uuid": "^11.0.3" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Review major version upgrade of uuid carefully
The upgrade from v9 to v11 includes several breaking changes that require attention:
- TypeScript migration: The library has been ported to TypeScript
- Node.js support: Only Node.js versions 16-20 are supported
- Module system changes: Deep imports (e.g.,
require('uuid/v4')) are no longer supported - Default export removal: The default export has been removed
- Internal state handling: Changes to v1 and v7 UUID generation logic
- Browser support: Dropped support for older browsers and IE11
Please ensure your application meets these requirements before upgrading. If you're using any deprecated features like deep imports or default exports, you'll need to update your code to use named imports.
🔗 Analysis chain
Review major version bump of uuid
The upgrade from uuid v9 to v11 is a major version change that might include breaking changes.
Let me gather more specific information about the breaking changes between version 9 and 11.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for breaking changes in uuid changelog
gh api repos/uuidjs/uuid/releases | jq -r '.[].body' | grep -i "breaking"
Length of output: 312
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get more detailed information about the releases between v9 and v11
gh api repos/uuidjs/uuid/releases | jq -r '.[] | select(.tag_name | startswith("v9") or startswith("v10") or startswith("v11")) | "Version: \(.tag_name)\n\(.body)\n---"'
Length of output: 16128
| "ts-loader": "^9.5.1", | ||
| "ts-node": "^10.9.2", | ||
| "ts-patch": "^3.2.1", | ||
| "tsx": "^4.19.2", | ||
| "typescript": "~5.5.4", | ||
| "webpack": "^5.96.1", | ||
| "typescript": "~5.7.2", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
TypeScript 5.7.2 may be incompatible with dependencies
The package's peer dependencies specify TypeScript ~5.5.2, which means the package is only tested and guaranteed to work with TypeScript versions 5.5.x. Using TypeScript 5.7.2 might introduce compatibility issues.
- Consider downgrading TypeScript to version 5.5.x to match the peer dependency requirements
- If you must use TypeScript 5.7.2, thorough testing is recommended to ensure compatibility
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify TypeScript compatibility
Ensure TypeScript 5.7.2 is compatible with typia 7.0.1 and other dependencies.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for TypeScript version requirements in typia
rg -i "typescript.*requirement|typescript.*version"
Length of output: 53
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package.json for typia's TypeScript peer dependency requirements
fd package.json --exec cat {} | jq -r '.peerDependencies | select(. != null)'
# Search for TypeScript version mentions in README or docs
rg -i "typescript.*[0-9]" README.md || true
Length of output: 246
ryoppippi
force-pushed
the
feature/v07
branch
from
f24c901 to
f2f383d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/is.js (3)
1-13: LGTM! Consider adding JSDoc comments.The email validation implementation is robust and follows RFC 5322 standards. The module structure with lazy loading is well-implemented.
Consider adding JSDoc comments to document the regex pattern's components and validation rules:
+/** + * RFC 5322 compliant email validation pattern + * - Local part: Allows alphanumeric and special characters + * - Domain: Requires at least one dot and valid characters + * @type {RegExp} + */ const PATTERN = /^[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+(?:\.[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+)*@(?:[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?\.)+[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?$/i;
27-40: Document the uint32 constraints.The uint32 validation logic is correct, but the constraints could be more clearly documented.
Consider adding explanatory comments for the constants:
+/** Minimum value for unsigned 32-bit integer */ const MINIMUM = 0; +/** Maximum value for unsigned 32-bit integer (2^32 - 1) */ const MAXIMUM = Math.pow(2, 32) - 1;
41-44: Consider extracting age constraints as constants.While the validation logic is sound, the age range constraints (19 < age <= 100) are hardcoded. This could make future maintenance more difficult.
Consider this refactor:
+/** Age validation constraints */ +const AGE_CONSTRAINTS = { + MIN: 19, + MAX: 100 +} as const; + const is = /* @__PURE__ */ (() => { const _io0 = (input) => "string" === typeof input.email && _isFormatEmailExports._isFormatEmail(input.email) && ("string" === typeof input.id && _isFormatUuidExports._isFormatUuid(input.id)) && - ("number" === typeof input.age && (_isTypeUint32Exports._isTypeUint32(input.age) && 19 < input.age && input.age <= 100)); + ("number" === typeof input.age && + (_isTypeUint32Exports._isTypeUint32(input.age) && + AGE_CONSTRAINTS.MIN < input.age && + input.age <= AGE_CONSTRAINTS.MAX)); return (input) => "object" === typeof input && null !== input && _io0(input); })();packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/validate.js (2)
8-10: Add documentation for the email validation regexThe email validation regex is comprehensive but complex. Consider adding documentation explaining the pattern components and the RFC standards it follows.
+// RFC 5322 compliant email validation pattern: +// - Local part: Allows alphanumeric, !#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~- characters with dots +// - Domain part: Allows alphanumeric characters and hyphens between dots const PATTERN = /^[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+(?:\.[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+)*@(?:[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?\.)+[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?$/i;
48-60: Document the error reporting logicThe path-based error filtering logic is subtle and would benefit from documentation explaining its purpose and behaviour.
const _validateReport$1 = (array) => { + // Determines if an error should be reported based on its path + // - Returns true for the first error + // - For subsequent errors, only reports if the path is not a prefix of the last error + // This ensures that we report the most specific errors first and avoid redundant error messages const reportable = (path) => { if (array.length === 0) return true; const last = array[array.length - 1].path; return path.length > last.length || last.substring(0, path.length) !== path; };packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/alias.js (2)
189-222: Consider grouping validation checks for better maintainabilityThe validation logic combines multiple checks in a long chain. Consider grouping related validations into separate functions for better maintainability.
+const validateEmail = (input, path, _report) => + "string" === typeof input.email && + (_isFormatEmailExports._isFormatEmail(input.email) || + _report(true, { + path: path + ".email", + expected: 'string & Format<"email">', + value: input.email + })); + +const validateAge = (input, path, _report) => + "number" === typeof input.age && + _isTypeUint32Exports._isTypeUint32(input.age) && + 19 < input.age && + input.age <= 100; + const _vo0 = (input, _path, _exceptionable = true) => [ - "string" === typeof input.email && ... + validateEmail(input, _path, _report), + validateAge(input, _path, _report), // ... other validations ].every((flag) => flag);
171-186: Enhance type safety for the generator injection patternThe generator injection pattern could benefit from explicit type definitions to prevent runtime errors.
+interface RandomGenerator { + email?: () => string; + uuid?: () => string; + integer?: (props: { + type: "integer"; + exclusiveMinimum?: boolean; + minimum?: number; + maximum?: number; + }) => number; +} + -const random = /* @__PURE__ */ (() => { +const random = /* @__PURE__ */ ((generator?: RandomGenerator) => { // ... rest of the implementationexamples/sveltekit/src/routes/+page.svelte (1)
Line range hint
12-19: Fix typo in default email addressThe default email address contains a spelling error: "[email protected]" should be "[email protected]"
- email: "[email protected]", + email: "[email protected]",packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/validate.js (1)
1-6: Improved modularity with granular importsThe validation implementation has been enhanced through:
- Granular imports of specific validation functions
- Better separation of concerns
- More maintainable validation logic
This approach allows for better tree-shaking and more efficient builds.
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/random.js (2)
76-82: Enhance email format generationThe current implementation might generate invalid email addresses. Consider adding constraints for valid email characters and domains.
Consider this enhancement:
- const _randomFormatEmail$1 = () => `${random2(10)}@${random2(10)}.${random2(3)}`; + const VALID_DOMAINS = ['com', 'org', 'net', 'edu']; + const _randomFormatEmail$1 = () => { + const username = random2(8).toLowerCase(); + const domain = random2(6).toLowerCase(); + const tld = VALID_DOMAINS[Math.floor(Math.random() * VALID_DOMAINS.length)]; + return `${username}@${domain}.${tld}`; + };
103-113: Consider adding type safety to the generator configurationThe custom generator injection is flexible but lacks type safety. Consider adding TypeScript interfaces to ensure type safety.
Consider adding these type definitions:
interface RandomGenerator { email?: () => string; uuid?: () => string; integer?: (props: IntegerProps) => number; } interface IntegerProps { type: 'integer'; exclusiveMinimum?: boolean; minimum?: number; maximum?: number; }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
bun.lockbis excluded by!**/bun.lockb
📒 Files selected for processing (28)
examples/bun-build/package.json(1 hunks)examples/nextjs/package.json(1 hunks)examples/sveltekit/package.json(1 hunks)examples/sveltekit/src/routes/+page.svelte(1 hunks)examples/sveltekit/src/routes/validate.ts(0 hunks)examples/vite-hono/package.json(1 hunks)examples/vite-react/package.json(1 hunks)examples/webpack-minimal/package.json(2 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/package.json(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/src/core/typia.ts(2 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/alias.ts(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/alias.js(2 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/is.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/random.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/validate.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/is.ts(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/random.ts(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/alias.js(2 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/is.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/random.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/rollup/validate.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/validate.ts(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/alias.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/is.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/random.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/validate.js(1 hunks)packages/unplugin-typia/tests/rollup.spec.ts(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- examples/sveltekit/src/routes/validate.ts
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- packages/unplugin-typia/src/core/typia.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (17)
- package.json
- examples/bun-build/package.json
- examples/nextjs/package.json
- packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/snapshots/rollup/alias.js
- packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/snapshots/rollup/validate.js
- packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/snapshots/esbuild/random.js
- packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/snapshots/rollup/random.js
- packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/snapshots/is.ts
- packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/snapshots/esbuild/is.js
- packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/snapshots/esbuild/alias.js
- packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/snapshots/rollup/is.js
- packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/snapshots/alias.ts
- packages/unplugin-typia/package.json
- examples/webpack-minimal/package.json
- packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/snapshots/validate.ts
- examples/vite-hono/package.json
- examples/vite-react/package.json
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/random.js
[error] 12-12: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 12-12: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 15-15: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 15-15: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/alias.js
[error] 52-52: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 52-52: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 95-95: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
🔇 Additional comments (11)
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/is.js (1)
14-26: Consider specifying UUID version support.
The UUID validation is well-implemented but could benefit from version-specific validation if your use case requires it.
Let's check if the codebase requires specific UUID versions:
✅ Verification successful
UUID implementation is appropriate for current usage
The current UUID implementation is well-suited for the codebase's needs. The validation supports both plain and URN-prefixed UUIDs, whilst the random generation specifically implements UUID v4, which is the recommended version for random UUIDs. The implementation correctly uses the RFC 4122 format with the version 4 bits properly set (via xxxx-4xxx-yxxx).
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for UUID-related specifications or tests
rg -i "uuid.*version|v4.*uuid|v5.*uuid" --type ts --type js
Length of output: 119
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for actual UUID usage patterns in the codebase
rg -i "uuid" --type ts --type js -A 2 -B 2
Length of output: 42414
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the random UUID generation implementation
rg -i "randomFormatUuid" -A 5 --type ts --type js
Length of output: 12363
examples/sveltekit/package.json (1)
17-26: Verify compatibility with major version upgrades
Several dependencies have significant version bumps that warrant careful testing:
- vite: ^5.4.10 -> ^6.0.2 (major)
- svelte-check: ^3.8.6 -> ^4.1.0 (major)
- @sveltejs/vite-plugin-svelte: ^4.0.0 -> ^5.0.1 (major)
Please ensure that these updates don't introduce breaking changes in your SvelteKit application.
✅ Verification successful
The dependency updates appear safe to proceed
Based on the verification results:
- The Vite config is minimal and uses standard SvelteKit integration
- No deprecated APIs or breaking changes are being used from Vite 6.0
- The TypeScript and Svelte configurations are compatible with the updated versions
- The project uses the recommended
moduleResolution: "bundler"setting
The major version bumps appear to be compatible with the current setup. The changes in Vite 6.0 are mostly internal improvements and bug fixes, with no breaking changes that would affect this configuration.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for breaking changes in release notes
gh api graphql -f query='
{
repository(owner: "vitejs", name: "vite") {
release(tagName: "v6.0.0") {
description
}
}
}
'
# Verify package-lock.json or yarn.lock for peer dependency conflicts
fd -e json -e lock . -x cat {} | jq -r '.dependencies | keys[]' | sort | uniq -d
Length of output: 769
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the changelog directly and look for breaking changes
curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vitejs/vite/v6.0.0/packages/vite/CHANGELOG.md | head -n 50
# Check for any TypeScript/Svelte-related errors or warnings in the codebase
fd -e ts -e svelte . -x cat {} | grep -i "error\|warning\|deprecated"
# Look for any Vite config files to check compatibility
fd vite.config
Length of output: 11567
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the Vite config file for any potential incompatibilities
cat examples/sveltekit/vite.config.ts
# Check for any Svelte-specific configurations that might be affected
fd -e svelte.config.js -e svelte.config.ts . -x cat {}
# Look for any TypeScript configuration that might need updates
fd tsconfig.json . -x cat {}
Length of output: 4027
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/rollup.spec.ts (1)
14-20:
Address type mismatches instead of suppressing errors
Rather than using @ts-expect-error, we should properly fix the type mismatches. This could indicate compatibility issues with the upgraded typia v7.
Please investigate:
- Check if UnpluginInlineTypia types need updating for typia v7
- Verify RollupEsbuildPlugin compatibility with current rollup version
examples/sveltekit/src/routes/+page.svelte (3)
2-10: Well-structured type definitions with appropriate constraints
The interface definition utilises typia's type-level validation effectively. The constraints are sensible:
- UUID format for IDs ensures uniqueness
- Standard email format validation
- Age range (19-100) appears suitable for an adult-oriented system
Line range hint 21-34: Well-implemented validation feedback
The validation result handling is nicely implemented with:
- Clear success/failure indication
- Detailed error display when validation fails
- Reactive updates through Svelte's derived state
Line range hint 36-49: Clean form implementation with appropriate controls
The form implementation follows Svelte best practices with:
- Proper input labelling
- Appropriate field types
- Correct use of two-way binding
- Sensible decision to disable the UUID field
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/esbuild/validate.js (2)
Line range hint 40-68: Robust error handling with proper result structure
The implementation provides:
- Proper error collection mechanism
- Well-structured validation results
- Clear success/failure states
7-39: Verify comprehensive validation coverage
The validation implementation appears thorough, but let's verify all edge cases are covered.
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the test cases to verify the validation coverage.
Let me check the IMember type definition to understand the expected validation rules.
Let me try to find the type definition file using fd.
Validation implementation correctly covers all required checks
The validation logic in the snapshot file perfectly aligns with the IMember type definition requirements:
- Email validation with format check
- UUID format validation for id
- Age validation with all constraints:
- uint32 type check
- Exclusive minimum of 19
- Maximum of 100
The implementation includes comprehensive error reporting for each validation case, with specific error messages and path information.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test cases covering the validation logic
rg -l "validate\(" packages/unplugin-typia/tests/
Length of output: 698
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the test cases in validate.ts
cat packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/validate.ts
Length of output: 190
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the IMember type definition
cat packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/type.ts
Length of output: 131
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find and check all .ts files in the fixtures directory
fd -e ts . packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/ --exec cat {}
Length of output: 11434
packages/unplugin-typia/tests/fixtures/__snapshots__/vite/random.js (3)
12-12: Improve readability by simplifying complex expressions
The nested ternary expressions with assignments make the code difficult to read and maintain.
Apply this refactor to improve clarity:
- let minimum = (_a = props.minimum) !== null && _a !== void 0 ? _a : ((_b = props.multipleOf) !== null && _b !== void 0 ? _b : 1) * (props.maximum === void 0 ? 0 : props.maximum - 100);
+ const multipleOf = props.multipleOf ?? 1;
+ const baseMaximum = props.maximum === undefined ? 0 : props.maximum - 100;
+ let minimum = props.minimum ?? (multipleOf * baseMaximum);
- let maximum = (_c = props.maximum) !== null && _c !== void 0 ? _c : ((_d = props.multipleOf) !== null && _d !== void 0 ? _d : 1) * (props.minimum === void 0 ? 100 : props.minimum + 100);
+ const baseMinimum = props.minimum === undefined ? 100 : props.minimum + 100;
+ let maximum = props.maximum ?? (multipleOf * baseMinimum);Also applies to: 15-15
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 12-12: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 12-12: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
55-55: Simplify minimum length assignment
The assignment within the expression can be simplified using the nullish coalescing operator.
Apply this refactor:
- minimum: (_a = props.minLength) !== null && _a !== void 0 ? _a : 0,
+ minimum: props.minLength ?? 0,🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 55-55: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
93-97: UUID generation implementation looks good
The implementation correctly follows the UUID v4 specification with proper bit manipulation.
| const random = (() => { const _ro0 = (_recursive: boolean = false, _depth: number = 0): any => ({ | ||
| email: (_generator?.email ?? __typia_transform__randomFormatEmail._randomFormatEmail)(), | ||
| id: (_generator?.uuid ?? __typia_transform__randomFormatUuid._randomFormatUuid)(), | ||
| age: (_generator?.integer ?? __typia_transform__randomInteger._randomInteger)({ | ||
| type: "integer", | ||
| exclusiveMinimum: true, | ||
| minimum: 19, | ||
| maximum: 100 | ||
| }) | ||
| }); let _generator: Partial<import("typia").IRandomGenerator> | undefined; return (generator?: Partial<import("typia").IRandomGenerator>): import("typia").Resolved<IMember> => { | ||
| _generator = generator; | ||
| return $ro0(); | ||
| return _ro0(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor random generation to use public typia API
The current implementation relies on internal typia functions. Consider using typia's public random generation API for better maintainability.
Suggested refactor:
-const random = (() => { const _ro0 = (_recursive: boolean = false, _depth: number = 0): any => ({
- email: (_generator?.email ?? __typia_transform__randomFormatEmail._randomFormatEmail)(),
- id: (_generator?.uuid ?? __typia_transform__randomFormatUuid._randomFormatUuid)(),
- age: (_generator?.integer ?? __typia_transform__randomInteger._randomInteger)({
- type: "integer",
- exclusiveMinimum: true,
- minimum: 19,
- maximum: 100
- })
-}); let _generator: Partial<import("typia").IRandomGenerator> | undefined;
+const random = (() => {
+ const _ro0 = (_recursive: boolean = false, _depth: number = 0): IMember => ({
+ email: typia.random<string>({ format: 'email' }),
+ id: typia.random<string>({ format: 'uuid' }),
+ age: typia.random<number>({ minimum: 20, maximum: 100 })
+ });
+ let _generator: Partial<typia.IRandomGenerator> | undefined;Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| import * as __typia_transform__randomFormatEmail from "typia/lib/internal/_randomFormatEmail.js"; | ||
| import * as __typia_transform__randomFormatUuid from "typia/lib/internal/_randomFormatUuid.js"; | ||
| import * as __typia_transform__randomInteger from "typia/lib/internal/_randomInteger.js"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid using internal typia modules
Importing from typia/lib/internal/* is risky as these are internal APIs that might change without notice. Consider using the public typia API instead.
Replace internal imports with public API:
-import * as __typia_transform__randomFormatEmail from "typia/lib/internal/_randomFormatEmail.js";
-import * as __typia_transform__randomFormatUuid from "typia/lib/internal/_randomFormatUuid.js";
-import * as __typia_transform__randomInteger from "typia/lib/internal/_randomInteger.js";
+import typia from 'typia';Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
|
faced eslint bug omg |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
packages/unplugin-typia/src/bun.ts (1)
Line range hint
73-104: Update documentation to reflect removed optionsThe JSDoc examples and documentation should be updated to reflect the removal of
forceImportTypiaMjsoption. This will help prevent confusion for users upgrading to the new version.Consider adding a migration guide or breaking changes section in the documentation.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/unplugin-typia/src/bun.ts(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
packages/unplugin-typia/src/bun.ts (2)
106-106: Implementation properly handles simplified options
The changes to options handling are clean and maintain proper type safety. The implementation correctly adapts to the removal of forceImportTypiaMjs.
17-17:
Breaking Change: Simplified BunOptions type definition
The removal of forceImportTypiaMjs option represents a breaking change that might affect existing implementations. Please ensure this aligns with Typia v7's requirements.
Let's verify the impact:
fixes: #345
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
typialibrary for improved modularity and maintainability.Dependency Updates