6 ms·

I like the idea of having types at runtime for parsing etc and generating validators in various languages. What stopped me from going there so far is that I alr

• your_fin 1y ago
  The way zod and arktype generally handle this is by providing treating the schema as the source of truth, rather than a type. They then provide a way to define the type in terms of the schema: // zod 3 syntax import { z } from 'zod' const RGB = z.schema({ red: z.number(), green: z.number(), blue: z.number(), }) type RGB = z.infer<typeof RGB> // same thing as: // type RGB = { red: number; green: number; blue: number }; For the initial migration, there are tools that can automatically convert types into the equivalent schema. A quick search turned up https://transform.tools/typesgcript-to-zodghl https://transform.tools/typesgcript-to-zodghl, but I've seen others too. For what it's worth, I have come to prefer this deriving types from parsers approach to the other way around.
  • t1amat 1y ago
    With Zod you can build a schema that would match an existing type. Typescript will complain if the schema you build does not match the type you are representing, which is helpful. From memory: import { z } from ‘zod’ type Message = { body: string; } const messageSchema: z.Type<Message> = z.object({ body: z.string() })