Skip to content

Conversation

@a-is-4-adam
Copy link
Contributor

  • Add TFormData generic parameter to formOptions function
  • Add test to verify listener type preservation with formOptions
  • Current implementation has intentional type issues for investigation

- Add TFormData generic parameter to formOptions function
- Add test to verify listener type preservation with formOptions
- Current implementation has intentional type issues for investigation
@nx-cloud
Copy link

nx-cloud bot commented Aug 6, 2025

View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit b2f9abe

Command Status Duration Result
nx affected --targets=test:sherif,test:knip,tes... ✅ Succeeded 1m 16s View ↗
nx run-many --target=build --exclude=examples/** ✅ Succeeded <1s View ↗

☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at 2025-08-09 09:28:01 UTC

@pkg-pr-new
Copy link

pkg-pr-new bot commented Aug 7, 2025

More templates

@tanstack/angular-form

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@tanstack/angular-form@1679

@tanstack/form-core

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@tanstack/form-core@1679

@tanstack/lit-form

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@tanstack/lit-form@1679

@tanstack/react-form

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@tanstack/react-form@1679

@tanstack/solid-form

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@tanstack/solid-form@1679

@tanstack/svelte-form

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@tanstack/svelte-form@1679

@tanstack/vue-form

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@tanstack/vue-form@1679

commit: b2f9abe

@LeCarbonator
Copy link
Contributor

There was a suggestion with using reverse mapped types, but I'll test it locally first because it may end up being too separated from the original types.

Do you mind if I commit the changes here if they work?

@a-is-4-adam
Copy link
Contributor Author

There was a suggestion with using reverse mapped types, but I'll test it locally first because it may end up being too separated from the original types.

Do you mind if I commit the changes here if they work?

Yeah go for it :)

@LeCarbonator
Copy link
Contributor

well, it was worth a shot.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 9, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.50%. Comparing base (124dd5b) to head (b2f9abe).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1679   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.50%   90.50%           
=======================================
  Files          37       37           
  Lines        1685     1685           
  Branches      421      421           
=======================================
  Hits         1525     1525           
  Misses        143      143           
  Partials       17       17           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@LeCarbonator
Copy link
Contributor

Alright, now we're talking. Would you mind giving this implementation a user test first? @a-is-4-adam

@LeCarbonator LeCarbonator linked an issue Aug 9, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@LeCarbonator LeCarbonator marked this pull request as ready for review August 9, 2025 08:41
@LeCarbonator LeCarbonator changed the title fix(form-core): improve formOptions type preservation - WIP fix(form-core): infer formOptions parameter's type correctly Aug 9, 2025
@LeCarbonator LeCarbonator merged commit 628c5ef into TanStack:main Aug 10, 2025
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

any type in form validators when using formOptions

2 participants