proposal-decorators VS openapi-typescript

Because many rules are common to many attributes (the coerceType operation is defined by WebIDL, or using similar rules, and the HTML specification defines a handful of microsyntaxes for the parseValue and stringifyValue operations), those could be packaged up in a helper library. And with decorators coming to ECMAScript (and already available in TypeScript), those could be greatly simplified:

Decorators are currently not a part of the standard JavaScript language. They are still being discussed in tc39 and have reached proposal stage 3. This means the spec has more or less stabilized and we can use them but they would be transplied before being run in the browser. This would be done via babel or tsc for most users

JavaScript was created a long time ago, and at the time of its inception, the authors decided not to use affirmative prefixes for boolean names. Now, they do their best by continuing to follow their convention, even if it goes against the community's opinion. Even if the authors wanted to introduce new naming conventions in the specification, they could not do it, at least not coherently. Old code cannot be renamed because JavaScript must remain backward-compatible. And starting to write new code using new approaches is not a great idea either, as there would be two ways to do the same thing, which is also undesirable.

2016-07 – Stage 2. After the decorators proposal reached stage 2, its API began to undergo significant changes. Furthermore, at one point the proposal was referred to as "ESnext class features for JavaScript." During its development, there were numerous ideas about how decorators could be structured. To get a comprehensive view of the entire history of changes, I recommend reviewing the commits in the proposal's repository. Here is an example of what the decorators API used to look like:

The example you've given isn't valid JavaScript, JS doesn't have decorators. (Although there is a stage 3 tc39 for it, afaik no browser has implemented it)

There was a decorators issue brought up in the meeting (issue 508) and decorators metadata, as noted in the article, is now at stage 3. So there's still active work being done on decorators. If I had to guess, I'd say they'd be a likely candidate for ES2024.

As per the proposal, decorators can be used with Classes and their elements such as fields, methods, and accessors. To leverage this feature, we need to ensure that our resolvers provider is an instance of a Class. Therefore, we will modify the code in src/api/users/users-resolvers.js to the following:

The modern version of decorators, which will be officially rolled out in TypeScript 5.0, no longer requires a compiler flag and follows the official ECMAScript Stage-3 proposal. Alongside a stable implementation that follows ECMAScript standards, decorators now work seamlessly with the TypeScript type system, enabling more enhanced functionality than the original version.

100% this. Going in depth of libraries will make you so much better developer than learning newest and coolest frameworks in JS ecosystem. Learn to create your own React, Promises, or anything you like in JS. It will give you immense perspective about these libraries. Once you start understanding them you will feel like they are not that complex and you can do it too. Go read TC39 proposals and issues people point out in them. You will see how JS is borrowing features from other languages.

The actual proposal gives the "@reactive" decorator as the first example, which just so happens is the only decorator that I use in my library with TypeScript's legacy decorator option. Was so happy to see they recognize this use case! https://github.com/tc39/proposal-decorators

OpenAPI TypeScript

I'll preface all of this with a couple esoteric design goals that I had in mind:

1. I actually _want_ an SPA. You might not need an SPA, if you don't need one then Vue/React/etc are overkill, etc.

2. I want to power as much of the SPA as I can using the same REST API as my core product, both for dogfooding reasons and for consolidation. Many people might argue that this is a bad idea.

---

With that in mind, some specific packages that I highly recommend:

1. Django-vite (https://github.com/MrBin99/django-vite). This makes it very easy to serve an SPA from the actual django response/request model

2. Some sort of way to get type information (if you're using TypeScript) into the frontend. I use a frankensteined system of the OpenAPI spec that django-ninja generates + openapi-typescript (https://github.com/drwpow/openapi-typescript). This means when I add, say, a new field to a response in Django, I immediately get typechecking for it in Vue — which has been _tremendously_ useful.

3. Django-typescript-routes (a package I extracted and open-sourced!: https://github.com/buttondown-email/django-typescript-routes) which gives your front-end routing information based on the Django router.

Glad to see alternatives but disappointed that Bruno does not support OpenAPI specification.

At my company, we hand-edit OpenAPI specs in YAML and it gets consumed by many tools that generate types[0], static analysis and dynamic checks[1]. The OpenAPI spec itself is linted[2]. And of course, Postman consumes OpenAPI.

Tools that are built on open standards will naturally see greater adoption over those that use proprietary formats.

[0]: https://openapi-ts.pages.dev

Another great library to generate TS types from OpenAPI is https://github.com/drwpow/openapi-typescript . It provides the types as single objects you access via indexing, which is pretty nice. There's a partner library to generate a typed fetch client.

If you're willing to document your API with an OpenAPI schema, then it should be possible to generate TypeScript types based on the OpenAPI schema with something like openapi-typescript. Also, Typebox can generate JSON schemas, maybe it can be used to generate something that the front-end can also use?

REST

In this sample, we'll achive it using openapi-typescript and openapi-typescript-fetch.

I've used this, and it works very well. https://github.com/drwpow/openapi-typescript