-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 148
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat!: add QoL improvements for converters #1595
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for doing this!
/** | ||
* Update data (for use with [update]{@link DocumentReference#update}) | ||
* that contains paths mapped to values. Fields that contain dots reference | ||
* nested fields within the document. | ||
* nested fields within the document. FieldValues can be passed in | ||
* as property values. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thinking out loud: Is "property" the right term and does it make it harder to understand? Should we drop it and just call it "values"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wanted to specify "property values" to convey that FieldValues can be set as the value of an object property, but not as the entire object value.
Apologies for pinging here, I'm just a bit confused by all the issues that reference this same "need". Has this been published to any version of the "firebase-admin" package, or is it still in the pipeline to be released? Thanks! |
This has not been published. We are still working on some details for the implementation that we published for the |
I'm a bit confused by the changes implemented for the update() method signature. The update() method does, to the best of my knowledge, not call the converter. Its parameters will not be converted, and must match the "storage format". So it should in fact not be an Am I missing something here? EDIT: I've reported this as #1745 |
Porting from web.
Fixes #1448.