class-validator VS typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks

You can learn more from the documentation here.

This is the request body when creating a new task. The IsString decorator provided by class-validator rejects all types other than strings, including undefined or null. The task name value object does not consider the possibility of values other than strings.

In this class, we are using the famous class-validator to decorate our request parameters. This way it is more clear how we are going to use our request object and everything.

We add validation using https://github.com/typestack/class-validator.

I will make sure we get this documented.

Also OP can check out class-transformer + class-validator if he want to properly instantiate objects and validate them with precise and verbose output of potential format errors. OP can even go the god tier way by setting up a custom RxJS operator that does that for him easily.

Start by installing the class-transformer and class-validator packages for dto validation (see more in the docs), sharp for image optimization, and the S3 client packages.

The description of the request body model in NestJS is similar to the description of Ditsmod models, but NestJS uses decorators provided by the utility class-validator. In NestJS, it is customary to name the request body model with the ending *Dto (this is an abbreviation of Data transfer object):

You could use Zod or Superstruct to validate the types of values, or use typestack/class-validator if it makes sense.

Also, title of before article was I made 1,000x faster TypeScript validator library, but today's benchmark is showing that typescript-json is maximum 6,500x times faster. It's just because I added a new library class-validator in the benchmark and it is much slower than previous zod. Of course, I've continuously tuned the performance, but it just improved the performance about 2x times only.

Has been heavily optimized, both in terms of its types and runtime performance. Even including the static parser, many types are about an order of magnitude more efficient than equivalent Zod. Early results show it as marginally faster than any validator currently published to typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks, not including more complex cases where (2) would give ArkType a much more significant advantage.

Zod is a bit of an underdog but it is not fast, AJV which is slightly more common can validate and generate types too but requires using JSON syntax, TypeBox offers familiar syntax to Zod while still being JSON syntax in the background.

First, they're not fast (runtime type checking benchmarks).

Aha, so you're using a library in Java for this. You know about libraries in TS for this, there are plenty of them btw, but you don't use them because it's so easy. Express has `any` type for `req.body` because authors don't care about this either and it's so easy. And TypeScript is the one to blame in that you prefer to work with `any` type for incoming data rather than validating it.

It is so much faster than Zod that Zod basically doesn't show, https://moltar.github.io/typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks/ and according to bundlejs, https://bundlejs.com/?q=zod%2Czod%2C%40sinclair%2Ftypebox&treeshake=%5B*%5D%2C%5B%7B+default+%7D%5D%2C%5B*%5D&config=%7B%22analysis%22%3Atrue%7D, it is even smaller. I genuinely have no clue why Zod is this popular in 2023.

TypeBox is a bit different to other libraries in this space where it's mostly intended to be used with a auxiliary JSON Schema validator. Although it provides a built in JSON Schema compiler (which is currently the fastest (not-AOT) runtime validator available for JavaScript today), it's equally intended to be used with validators like Ajv (or any other standards compliant validator)

I do plan to add some direct comparisons to https://github.com/moltar/typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks as well but haven't had a chance yet.

I think it's more of a case of the extremely low performance bar that's been set by the status quo (for even the simplest of validation structures). There's been a lot of focus on the TS type inference, and less on the runtime performance (which actually matters more as it does reduce operational costs). It probably wouldn't be such an issue if the performance was reasonable, but I mean here's the full breakdown https://moltar.github.io/typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks/.

I found a benchmark for runtime performance, but I haven't found any for intellisense/editor performance.