tryCatch + nullableTryCatch about toolbox

[AmirabbasJ]

@ASafaeirad
You're right
it could be much more general than being just for promises
but in that case we should have one for general use and one specifically for promises
because the return type won't really work out this way

if we change it to

type TryCatch = <T, E>(f: () => T, onErr: () => E) => E | T

this way if the T is of type e.g Promise<string> and the E is number then the return type would be Promise<string> | number which is not what we want

so in conclusion we need a new function for each wrapper type
I'll fix the signature

[Keivan-sf]

Will look into this one, feel free to assign

[ASafaeirad]

This is an old issue, we gave up with namespaces.

[ASafaeirad]

It seems nice 👍
But why should it work with promises?

[AmirabbasJ]

I think we also need a namespace for each type so that we can have such thing

import * as N from 'toolbox/Nullable'
import { asyncTryCatch, tryCatch } from 'toolbox/functions'

tryCatch()
asyncTryCatch() 
N.tryCatch()
N.asyncTryCatch()

[ASafaeirad]

It makes sense. I agree.

[Keivan-sf]

Do we really need this syntax?

N.asyncTryCatch()
N.tryCatch()

Cause right now nullable functions are exposed like this:

import { concatArrays } from '@fullstacksjs/toolbox'

If we want to have a syntax like N.tryCatch() and also prevent confusion with the normal tryCatch , we need to export a single nullable object rather than its utilities, which is breaking.
Or maybe I'm just missing something

[github-actions]

🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 4.6.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀