Ability to cherry-pick groups next to default fields / Define groups that are by default excluded.

[Rush]

import { t, jsonSerializer } from '@deepkit/type';

class Foo {
  @t
  name!: string;

  @t.any.group('withDetails')
  veryBigObject!: any;
}


const out = jsonSerializer.for(Foo).deserialize({
  name: 'foo',
  veryBigObject: { abc: 1, def: 2 } // imagine this is huge
}, { groups: [] });

console.log(out); // don't want `veryBigObject` here as we're compiling without `withDetails`

const outWithDetails = jsonSerializer.for(Foo).deserialize({
  name: 'foo',
  veryBigObject: { abc: 1, def: 2 } // imagine this is huge
}, { groups: [ 'withDetails' ] });

console.log(outWithDetails);

Result is:

Foo { name: 'foo', veryBigObject: { abc: 1, def: 2 } }
Foo { veryBigObject: { abc: 1, def: 2 } }

But expected result would be:

Foo { name: 'foo'  }
Foo { name: 'foo', veryBigObject: { abc: 1, def: 2 } }

So it's kind of opposite to how I imagine groups should work ;) I'd like the user of the API to cherry pick "additional groups" they want to see on top of the default fields.

This would map it to how class-transformer works.

[marcj]

You can use jsonSerializer.for(Foo).deserialize(..., { groupsExclude: [ 'withDetails' ] });. If you want to include only properties that have no groups assigned, you can now use {groups: []}.

[Rush]

If you want to include only properties that have no groups assigned, you can now use {groups: []}.

Right but what if I want to have both fields with no groups assigned PLUS some groups. groups: [] is kind of an all or nothing thing. I can imagine groupsExclude to become very unwieldy. Imagine having feature flags such as withFeatureX, withFeatureY, withFeatureZ. I think it's much more convenient to say: "Give me this document with all default fields and with feature Z enabled" rather than to say "Give me this document with feature X and Y". The latter is also more bug prone when adding new sets of groups to the classes as it will by default expose them.

[marcj]

You could add a group to each field then, e.g. a default. This is probably the most secure and stable way.

[Rush]

You could add a group to each field then, e.g. a default. This is probably the most secure and stable way.

Agreed it would work. But this adds verbosity. Judging by the API @t the idea is to have a default behavior that's quick and easy. :)

Why not have an additional groupsInclude which would be the opposite of groupsExclude and it would do exactly what I am describing?

groupsInclude: [] - Should return all fields with no group specified. It should exclude all fields with groups. groupsInclude: ['foo'] - Should return all fields with no group specific. In addition it should include group 'foo'

[marcj]

Why not have an additional groupsInclude which would be the opposite of groupsExclude and it would do exactly what I am describing?

Yes, that would make sense 👍

[Rush]

Alternatively maybe there could be a symbol for representing a default group. Such as:

// somewhere in the deepkit src
export const NO_GROUP = new Symbol('NO_GROUP');

groups [ NO_GROUP, 'foo' ] 

PS. Probably it would deserve better naming :-P

[Rush]

And one more alternative that I came up with:

groups: [, 'foo' ]

» node
Welcome to Node.js v14.15.0.
Type ".help" for more information.
> [, 'foo']
[ <1 empty item>, 'foo' ]

This empty item could be recognized as wanting to include fields with no groups specified.

[marcj]

Alternative API

const item = jsonSerializer.for(Foo).withGroups('foo', 'bar').includeNoGroup().serialize(item);


const serializer = jsonSerializer.for(Foo).withGroups('foo', 'bar').includeNoGroup()
const item = serializer.serialize(item);