Allow accessing underlying interaction as an escape hatch

[felds]

Currently, there is no way (that I know of) to access the underlying interaction on a slash command. This would be useful in order to perform actions not yet supported by gatekeeper (eg: #18), without losing gatekeeper's niceties like auto-syncing commands.

Maybe expose it as a something like readonly nativeInteraction: Interaction, to use the react convention for event handlers?

[itsMapleLeaf]

I think this is a good idea for the sake of productivity.

But there's a caveat: Gatekeeper uses an action queue system to ensure that interaction calls happen only once at a time, in the correct order, which is why there's no await required on reply calls. Reading from the interaction is fine, but calling functions on it has a high chance of erroring if you're not careful.

I'll accept a PR for this, on the condition that this caveat is added in the comment for it.

[felds]

Sure!! Having a way to drop to lower level brings its own challenges, and trying to mix both approaches would be crazy.

What if we added a whole different callback without the custom context? It's a little more work but the user wouldn't be able to mess with the context order of operations.

Something like this, maybe?

gatekeeper.addSlashCommand({
  name: "search",
  description: "Guess what…",
  options: {...},
  async nativeRun(interaction: Interaction) {...},
})

-- edit

missing the options typings would be sad, though

[itsMapleLeaf]

Sure!! Having a way to drop to lower level brings its own challenges, and trying to mix both approaches would be crazy.

What if we added a whole different callback without the custom context? It's a little more work but the user wouldn't be able to mess with the context order of operations.

Something like this, maybe?

gatekeeper.addSlashCommand({
  name: "search",
  description: "Guess what…",
  options: {...},
  async nativeRun(interaction: Interaction) {...},
})

-- edit

missing the options typings would be sad, though

Actually, I think I like this. It aligns with some future plans I have with gatekeeper as well. If you want to add this into the library with the appropriate comments, I'll accept it. :slightly_smiling_face:

The missing options types, I'll just call it a tradeoff for "needing to go lower level", honestly