Init multiple indexes and store them

[Rigo-m]

Shouldn't useInitIndex be more capable and init more indexes at once and maybe save them into a global state accessible through the app? Could be useful when working with a big application with lots of ui components working with indexes.

[Baroshem]

Hey,

If I understand you correctly, you would like useInitIndex to accept a string or an array of strings (of index names)?
And then use useState with some dynamic value to be able to store multiple indexes in both client and server reactive state?

Something like this:

<script setup>
  const indexes = useInitIndex(['test', 'super', 'etc'])

  indexes[0].appId = 'test'
</script>

This is indeed interesting feature, however I am not sure if this should be part of this composable or whether it should be a completely new composable like useInitMultipleIndexes. Thanks to that we will have one composable that handles single index and other that handles many indexes. We could avoid issues with different composable params and return values.

What do you think?

[Rigo-m]

Exactly this + a composable to init multiple indices at once in case we need to work with multiple indexes at once.

i.e.:

const { algolia } = useRuntimeConfig()
const { productIndex, moduleIndex } = useInitMultipleIndex(algolia.indexes.products, algolia.indexes.models)`

[Rigo-m]

I think having indexes defined in one place and create types from them can greatly improve DX by suggesting the correct indexes names and avoid trivial errors.

[Baroshem]

That would work really well. I would just change it so that the useInitMultipleIndex() composable would accept an array and also return an array of indexes like this:

const { algolia } = useRuntimeConfig()
const indexes = useInitMultipleIndex([algolia.indexes.products, algolia.indexes.models])

console.log("product-index", indexes[0])
console.log("models-index", indexes[1])

[Rigo-m]

Mind me making a PR to make this happen?

[Baroshem]

That would be awesome! Yes, do it for sure and I will do my best to help you :)

[Baroshem]

@yassilah

What do you think about this feature? :)

[yassilah]

Hmm I see the point of storing the index names somewhere but I don't really see the value of having it as part the module. What I think could be interesting though is to provide and extensible interface to add types and IDE auto-complete for index names. This way we don't need to store the index names but they would still be "configurable" and add a lot more value (in my opinion) as you would get search results types depending on the index name. I think initializing multiple indices can be a good thing though and shouldn't be too hard to implement :)

[yassilah]

I think we're talking about the same thing but I'm not sure aha I'll just make a quick example on another branch, you may take a look and tell me if that's it, if not just discard it 👍

[yassilah]

there you go: feat/type-indices

[Baroshem]

Yeah, this is a good example however, all of this can be done already as you added all changes to playground (what also makes me wanna have this as a part of algolia docs ;)). Would you like to create a short section in the docs about typing indices example? That could be useful for someone in the future.

Regarding the multiple indexes. I tried to work with it for a bit and I found it a bit like overdoing simple things as this all can be done right now without additional composable.

[yassilah]

Hey :) No currently you can't do it, I had to add some typings magic into the composable and the new types.ts file. But if we want to add those, I'd be happy to write some docs

[Baroshem]

You are right. I looked at only one commit. Let's create a pull request of your changes and see how it works in battle :)

[Baroshem]

Hey @Rigo-m

Yassilah created a pull request with this naming and type completion indices functionality. Could you take a look at it and give your thoughts? :)

#29

[Baroshem]

Guys,

I am really happy to announce that this feature was merged and released in a new version 0.7.1 :)

[Baroshem]

@Rigo-m

Could you please mark the discussion as answered? :)