feat(utils): specify detailed return type for parseBody

[usualoma]

What is this?

More restrictive on the type of value returned from parseBody().

const value = (await parseBody(req))['key'] // => string | File
const maybeArray = (await parseBody(req, {all: true}))['key'] // => string | File | (string | File)[]
const maybeObject = (await parseBody(req, {dot: true}))['key'] // => string | File | Object

Specification Changes

In v4.3.x, BodyData was defined as follows

hono/src/utils/body.ts

Line 3 in 75a7a09

export type BodyData = Record<string, string | File | (string | File)[]>

For applications using it directly, this change results in the following ((string | File)[] is no longer included)

const data: BodyData = {} // means Record<string, string | File>

To get the same result as in v4.3.x, you need to do the following.

const data: BodyData<{all: true}> = {}

Although there are some changes from v4.3.x as described above, I think it is useful to restrict the type of parseBody(), so I think it is better to include this change.

The author should do the following, if applicable

• Add tests
• Run tests
• bun denoify to generate files for Deno
• bun run format:fix && bun run lint:fix to format the code

[usualoma]

Uh, it wasn't easy. I'll think about it a bit.

[fzn0x]

This is cool PR!

I think you can just merge the imports in one import like this

import { parseBody, type BodyData } from './body'

I think we need to setup eslint to avoid imports to the same file @usualoma @yusukebe

[usualoma]

Thank you! That's certainly better.
I made the change in eecfc43.

[yusukebe]

@fzn0x

I think we need to setup eslint to avoid imports to the same file @usualoma @yusukebe

That's great! I'll work on it soon.

[usualoma]

@yusukebe How about this?

[usualoma]

Also added type to c.req.parseBody() in 3fb0ef8

[yusukebe]

Hi @usualoma !

It would be nice to have the type definition determined by what the value of the option is. But I think there are two problems:

1. Annotations by IDE are not friendly.

As you can see, it's not easy to understand type definitions for the user, though it should annotate string | File | (string | File)[]

2. I intended the first argument for the generic be parsed object types

I designed it so that the first argument of parseBody() generics is the returned type:

const result = await parseBody<{ key1: string, key2: string }>()
// ^ result should be { key1: string, key2: string }

But with this PR, it will be typed for the options. This will break the spec.

https://github.com/honojs/hono/pull/2771/files#diff-fb57c6d8981c47b991f2dc7914e05041c7d0c6651eabc7145562c00a78bc93d0R63-R72

---

I'm investigating how to fix these problems, but I can't find a good way now 😦

FYI

You may already know that Simply is a very useful utility type even though it can't resolve the problem 1.

https://github.com/honojs/hono/blob/main/src/utils/types.ts#L40

https://github.com/sindresorhus/type-fest/blob/main/source/simplify.d.ts

[usualoma]

@yusukebe Thank you!

2. I intended the first argument for the generic be parsed object types

Sorry, the very first push, 288e050, had that problem, but I think it was fixed in the subsequent 3b178fc.

I also added an explicit test at a6c300d. That should work, right?

1. Annotations by IDE are not friendly.

This is indeed true. I don't know how to solve it and will investigate.

[yusukebe]

@usualoma

I also added an explicit test at a6c300d. That should work, right?

Yes! Thanks!

This is indeed true. I don't know how to solve it and will investigate.

The one way is to write the types as very redundancy, but it might not be the best solution. Hmm.

[usualoma]

Hi @yusukebe
How about 0deb075?
It will appear as follows

I wanted to change the name of the x shown as [x: string], but I couldn't figure out how to contrl the variable name if I wrote [K in keyof T], so I left it as it is, named x.

[yusukebe]

@usualoma

Awesome!! Let's go with this!

[usualoma]

In 1c18227, variable names were changed to appropriate names. My work is now complete!

[yusukebe]

LGTM!

[yusukebe]

@usualoma Great! Merging now.