I'm planning to start cutting v4 releases soonish. What's your ETA on finishing this work @climba03003 ?

I'm planning to start cutting v4 releases soonish. What's your ETA on finishing this work @climba03003 ?

I assume it will be done on next week.

If it can not catch up on schedule, I am fine to go with next release.

no worries, I think we can wait a bit.

I think most of the original types is done. Now, I am facing the issue of it breaks the TypeProvider type resolve.
@sinclairzx81 Do you have time to look at which part I am doing wrong?

I'm planning to look at it soon (Today or tomorrow).

@climba03003 Hi, good work on the refactorings. It's a big job.

Just had a quick look at the branch. I think there could be an issue with the Schema (formally SchemaCompiler) not propagating through the types correctly. To test, I added the genericType and schemaType properties to the FastifyRequest<...> type to see what they were resolving to...as follows.

export interface FastifyRequest<
  Optional extends FastifyInstanceRouteGenericInterface = DefaultFastifyInstanceRouteGenericInterface,
  Generic extends FastifyInstanceRouteGenericInterface = OverrideRouteGeneric<Optional, DefaultFastifyInstanceRouteGenericInterface>,
  RequestType extends FastifyRequestType = ResolveFastifyRequestType<Generic>
> {
  // **added**
  genericType: Generic,
  schemaType: GetRouteSchema<Generic>

  
  id: any;
  params: RequestType['params'];
  raw: GetRequest<Generic>;
  query: RequestType['query'];
  headers: GetProp<GetRequest<Generic>, 'headers'> & RequestType['headers']; // this enables the developer to extend the 
  // ... omitted
}

Then created a implementation on the on the type provider tests to see what they were.

interface NumberProvider extends FastifyTypeProvider { output: number } // all schemas are numbers

expectAssignable(server.withTypeProvider<NumberProvider>().get(
  '/',
  {
    schema: { body: '' }
  },
  (req) => {
    const G = req.genericType // DefaultFastifyInstanceRouteGenericInterface: expected specialized interface type
    const S = req.schemaType  // FastifySchema: expected { body: '' }
  }
))

The Type Providers will need to see the schema provided by the user, however GetRouteSchema<Generic> is returning just a FastifySchema. Also the Generic argument is resolving to DefaultFastifyInstanceRouteGenericInterface (where I'd have imagined this to be generic, or mapped with the NumberProvider somewhere in its generic arguments).

There was a brief mention to the FastifySchema vs SchemaCompiler mapping requirements here #3397 (comment), but I think the trick will be ensuring that the schema appropriately gets passed through the types such that the Type Provider can see and resolve from it.

Hope that helps!

Hope that helps!

I think I will go for updating the route option and split the schema type outside of generic, then merge it back.
Your information does help on identify the what should be done next.

Here comes another problem and why it is always the default value.
Since the generic is using unknown, it is actually matching all types.
Then, if we try to override a single prop inside the generic, it will always return default.

microsoft/TypeScript#38456

@climba03003 I've put together a small prototype for the object generics and taken a bit of a look at the current overloads for register(). Posting here if it's helpful for reference. This approach should help propagate those generic types downwards and support arbitrary types for the other generic parameters.

I may not be actively fixing this in the coming few days. I have bunch of work stacked and planed to finish before the coming long holiday (of my country) in next week.

I will start the work again during weekend and next week.

@climba03003 any updates? I would like to ship the first rc asap.

@climba03003 any updates? I would like to ship the first rc asap.

I think you can just cut the line. I don't think it can be done in a short time based on my schedule.

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.