Relax the return type of extractField #303
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
To address #302 Also, in order to maintain type safety for indexed fields, and to allow more customization options, add a new `stringifyField` option to control how field values are turned into strings for indexing.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolves: #302
The return type of
extractFieldshould beanyinstead ofstring, because only indexed fields need to be strings, while fields that are saved but not indexed can be any object.In order to maintain type safety for indexed fields, and to allow more customization options, this also adds a new
stringifyFieldoption to control how field values are turned into strings before indexing/de-indexing.