Updated zod to schema comparison: added mention of Schema.URL #4346
Conversation
|
| @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ S.String.pipe(S.maxLength(5)) | |||
| S.String.pipe(S.minLength(5)) | |||
| S.String.pipe(S.length(5)) | |||
| // S.string().email() // No equivalent | |||
| // S.string().url() // No equivalent | |||
| S.URL | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AFAIK S.URL is not equivalent, z.string().url() just validates a string:
import z from "zod"
console.log(typeof z.string().url().parse("https://example.com"))
// stringThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Schema.Date is also not an exact equivalent, but this fact didn't prevent it from being mentioned as an equivalent a few lines later:
schema/comparisons.md L286-L307
### Dates
Zod
```ts
const date = z.string().date()
date.parse("2020-01-01") // pass
date.parse("2020-1-1") // fail
date.parse("2020-01-32") // fail
```
Schema
```ts
import { Schema as S } from "effect"
S.decodeUnknownSync(S.Date)("2020-01-01") // pass
S.decodeUnknownSync(S.Date)("2020-1-1") // pass
S.decodeUnknownSync(S.Date)("2020-01-32") // fail
```
import z from 'zod';
console.log(typeof z.string().date().parse('2020-01-01'));
// string
console.log(typeof Schema.decodeUnknownSync(Schema.Date)('2020-01-01'));
// object (Date)And I think that's fine that they're not exactly equivalent and still mentioned because there's a value in it. When I first saw that there's no equivalent of URL validation, I was really confused, spent time reimplementing Schema.URL, and only after I was done, I noticed it actually existed and I created absolutely the same thing.
I don't want this to happen to anybody else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it doesn't claim that they are equivalent, it shows what can be used in Schema when the input is a string. However, without proper description, that section is confusing and should be reorganized. Furthermore, since these docs were written, some things have changed (e.g., Schema.URL didn’t exist at the time). IMO, the entire document needs to be refactored
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assumed it claimed they were equivalent because it didn't claim otherwise. In cases where Effect had no equivalent, it was stated as:
### Times
No equivalent.
### IP addresses
No equivalent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, that's not your fault, the document needs to be restructured, it's currently confusing
|
Thank you @gcanti |
Type
Description
schema/comparisons.mdsaid that there is no alternative inEffecttozod'sz.string().url(), while @KhraksMamtsov added support in #3889