• What is gonna be the difference between FormGroup<Record<string, TValue>> and FormRecord<TValue>? If there is none why actually extend from AbstractControl and not just make it a type alias like FormRecord = FormGroup<Record<string, TValue>>;
• Right now FormRecord only takes TControl for the value type of controls but what if I want to narrow allowed control names to some type like type allowedKeys = 'first' | 'second' or keyof someType to get something like FormGroup<Record<allowedKeys , TValue>> ?

sorry for probably a lot of oversimplifications

ps. I saw that it is supposed to be open ended so mayby more like FormGroup<Partial<Record<allowedKeys , TValue>>>would be more precise?

@criskrzysiu

What is gonna be the difference between FormGroup<Record<string, TValue>> and FormRecord?

There is very little difference -- the types are a bit more permissive around removing and adding controls, in a way that's difficult to implement if everything just used FormGroup.

why actually extend from AbstractControl

We must extend FormGroup because there are some backwards-compatibility warts around .parent, which returns FormGroup|FormArray.

make it a type alias like FormRecord = FormGroup<Record<string, TValue>>;

By having a separate type, we can relax some of the constraints. e.g. addControl takes a string instead of a keyof TControl, and you can always call removeControl.

Thank You for the explanation

By having a separate type, we can relax some of the constraints. e.g. addControl takes a string instead of a keyof TControl, and you can always call removeControl.
Still I think that not being to put a constraint on the name of the controls is actually a step down.

But still as it is not super simple could I ask for a nice example for when to use FormGroup<Partial<Record<string, TValue>>> and FormRecord<TValue> in the docs? I think the subtleties will be the most difficult and confusing parts that would be error prone

@criskrzysiu

could I ask for a nice example for when to use FormGroup<Partial<Record<string, TValue>>> and FormRecord in the docs?

Always use FormRecord, never use FormGroup<Record<...>>. I haven't written all the docs yet, but I will do so in the coming weeks, including this topic!

I see that you just added the action: merge label, but the following checks are still failing:
     status "ci/circleci: legacy-unit-tests-saucelabs" is failing
     status "google3" is pending
     2 pending code reviews

If you want your PR to be merged, it has to pass all the CI checks.

If you can't get the PR to a green state due to flakes or broken master, please try rebasing to master and/or restarting the CI job. If that fails and you believe that the issue is not due to your change, please contact the caretaker and ask for help.

This PR was merged into the repository by commit e0a2248.

@criskrzysiu

could I ask for a nice example for when to use FormGroup<Partial<Record<string, TValue>>> and FormRecord in the docs?

Always use FormRecord, never use FormGroup<Record<...>>. I haven't written all the docs yet, but I will do so in the coming weeks, including this topic!

Unless the form group record type is not string but say an enum I believe... Am I correct?

This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity.
Please file a new issue if you are encountering a similar or related problem.

Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy.

_{This action has been performed automatically by a bot.}