Changed custom Id logic to enable optional custom IDs

[mauriceackel]

🚨🚨 THIS IS A BREAKING CHANGE! 🚨🚨

Until now, when a user set customId: true, they had to always enter an ID.

This PR introduces new options for the customId property. Instead of setting a boolean value, the user selects either required or optional. If the value is required, a custom ID has to be entered (i.e., current behavior). If the value is optional, the user can leave the id field empty. In this case, an automatic ID will be used.

[fgatti675]

Hi @mauriceackel
Thanks a lot for the PR, I think it is a good idea.
Since we are in the RC phase of version 1.0.0 I would rather not introduce breaking changes at this point.
I think we could easily solve this by still supporting the boolean type, which would work the same as before.
Think you can tweak it to keep the previous functionality?
Thanks!

[mauriceackel]

UPDATE BELOW

Hey @fgatti675, sure I can adapt the PR.

There are two ways to go here:

1. Make customId: boolean | 'optional' | EnumValue. This way, if customId == true, it would be the same behavior as currently (i.e. enforce entry of custom id)
2. Make customId: boolean | 'required' | EnumValue. This way, if customId == true, the user may but does not have to enter a custom Id. If the value is 'required', the user is forced to enter a custom Id

Which way do you prefer? I guess the least breaking approach would be "1."

I just committed a change, it simply involves changing the type definition. With this change, approach "1." is implemented. Please tell me what you think about it!

[fgatti675]

Hi @mauriceackel
I have just released version @camberi/[email protected] with this change as a pre release, in case you want to test it or start using it before it is officially released ;)

[mauriceackel]

Hey @fgatti675,

I tested the branch and it looks good to me :) Thanks for the custom release! Looking forward to see this in production, there might need to be an update in the doc as well, what do you think?