Add initial TrailBase integration and tests.

[ignatz]

I've also started working on an example, as you suggested, but wanted to send out an RFC early.

Don't hold back. Let me know if this is going roughly the expected direction. If so, also let me know how you'd like to handle a potential example, e.g. should it be part of the same PR, should it be a full replica of the todo example?

Thanks!

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 59bcb8d

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[KyleAMathews]

Looking good!

BTW, thinking about this PR made me realize we really should have collection types be in their own packages so e.g. if you want to do a major release you can #235

We'll be migrating the other packages in the next day or two so you can just move this PR to create a new package.

[ignatz]

BTW, thinking about this PR made me realize we really should have collection types be in their own packages so e.g. if you want to do a major release you can #235

Sounds good. I was thinking the same, let alone when adding the backend-specific dependency.

We'll be migrating the other packages in the next day or two so you can just move this PR to create a new package.

If I understood correctly, we'll table this review until the split has happened for me to rebase? Sounds good, just ping this PR and I'll get the train rolling.

Did you think about the example, should we handle it in a follow-up?

Thanks!

[KyleAMathews]

The refactor is merged so you can now move your code to a trailbase-db-collection package #252

[ignatz]

Awesome! Moved to separate package.

[KyleAMathews]

Great! I also refactored the example so you can easily add a trail base version. Could you look at doing that? The docker backend perhaps could have a trail base setup too?

[ignatz]

Great! I also refactored the example so you can easily add a trail base version. Could you look at doing that? The docker backend perhaps could have a trail base setup too?

Sure can do. Quick questions:

• Would you like me to add to the existing example?
• If so, just add to the existing docker-compose or have a separate compose setup?
• Would you like to make it part of this initial PR?

[KyleAMathews]

Yeah same example. It's meant to be an omnibus example so easily see every collection type. And yes, one command to start all of them. And yes in this pr as that'll make it easier to test.

[ignatz]

I added TrailBase to the example. I tried to fumble my way through...

• Additions and deletions work, however update both for the config and todo fail due to zod validation. I have differnt data types. I already made created_at and updated_at strings, which worked for insertions but not for updates 🤷‍♀️

[KyleAMathews]

hmm interesting — you're using the zod schemas from drizzle it looks like? So you should use zod schemas consistent with the trailblaze schema? I suppose you can't have Date types w/ sqlite?

[ignatz]

hmm interesting — you're using the zod schemas from drizzle it looks like?

That my understanding, at first I tried to make mine compatible because I didn't necessarily want to change the downstream code.

So you should use zod schemas consistent with the trailblaze schema?

I guess so.

I suppose you can't have Date types w/ sqlite?

SQLite has a DATETIME type, which internally is just an INT64. That said, for type-safety reasons TrailBase requires STRICT mode (see migrations), which doesn't allow DATETIME. W/o STRICT, types are merely affinities and SQLite let's you stick any value into any column :)

[KyleAMathews]

Ok — yeah the other collections serialize & deserialize to/from Date objects — I imagine most people might want that for Trailblaze? Perhaps you could add a parser & serialize config option to the Trailblaze collection?

[ignatz]

Ok — yeah the other collections serialize & deserialize to/from Date objects — I imagine most people might want that for Trailblaze? Perhaps you could add a parser & serialize config option to the Trailblaze collection?

That's an interesting proposal. I would certainly love not to to diverge the downstream code of the example. Could you elaborate a bit how this could look like, is there any precedent for me to look at? Thanks

EDIT: Would this just be two functions:

parser: (record: Record) -> TItem,
serialize: (item: TItem) -. Record,

? If so, yeah, yeah I'll do that. It will certainly be a good starting point.

[ignatz]

Ok, I found

db/examples/react/todo/src/lib/collections.ts

Line 21 in b2ce3ed

timestamptz: (date: string) => new Date(date),

, which is probably what you meant. I'm not sure the same approach would work for me, since my base type is just INTEGER as opposed to PG TIMESTAMPZ.

Anyway, it works now 🎉 . Do you think this is a workable starting point?

[KyleAMathews]

Nice!

Yeah, parsing/serializing the whole row works — perhaps doing it per column would be better though as for big tables, it'd be tedious to have to pass through all the untouched stuff. Electric has a parser by pg type as you found.

[KyleAMathews]

I tested it briefly — update works if I refresh the page after adding a todo. But not if I add it and then try to check it off. Changing the color of the background doesn't work either.

[ignatz]

perhaps doing it per column would be better though as for big tables, it'd be tedious to have to pass through all the untouched stuff.

I like that, I'm just not sure my TS foo is strong enough. I'm aware that it can render Doom, but how would I define/infer a type Parse as follows:

type TItem = { 
 id: string;
 created: Date;
}
type TRecord = {
 id: string;
 created: number;
}

type Parse = {
 id?: (id: string) => string;
 created: (id: number) => Date;
}

function parse(parse: Parse, record: Partial<TRecord> | Record) : Partial<TItem> | TItem;

Instead I rewrote the serialize/parse implementations to only explicit set the relevant fields. Do you think this could be a workable starting point?

{
  parse: (record: Todo): SelectTodo => ({
    ...record,
    created_at: new Date(record.created_at * 1000),
    updated_at: new Date(record.updated_at * 1000),
  }),
}

I tested it briefly — update works if I refresh the page after adding a todo. But not if I add it and then try to check it off. Changing the color of the background doesn't work either.

My bad. Fixed

TrailBase-TanstackDB.mp4