`omit` properties of a `Constraint` or `Intersect`? about runtypes

[woifes]

Hello and thank you for the response! This is exactly what I am looking for. I achvied to miss the underlying property somehow...

Mostly I use it for definitons. If Package A defines a really generic one I want to specialize the definitions in a depending package.

In your first example it is not really the same since I am then able to have a configuration without the "A"s (so it is smaller and less repetitive) and fill up the "A"s incode to later delegate it. But if I need more configuration (like a "C") then it is added automatically.

Thank you very much!

[yuhr]

There's no straightforward way to do it like that. Constraint (and also Intersect) runtype only knows about its underlying runtype (intersectees for Intersect), so if you want to manipulate the underlying one, you have to unwrap first and then rewrap it by a constraint function again, e.g.

const myRuntype = Record({
    A: Number,
    B: Number,
}).withConstraint((r) => {
    return r.A > r.B || `A has to be bigger than B`;
});

const myOtherRuntype = myRuntype.underlying.omit("A").withConstraint((r) => {
    if (myRuntype.underlying.pick("A").guard(r)) {
        return r.A > r.B || `A has to be bigger than B`;
    } else {
        return `A has to be present and a number`;
    }
});

But I don't see the motivation of this, as the above myRuntype and myOtherRuntype are essentially the same.

Optionalizing a property can be done by:

myRuntype.underlying.omit('A').extend({ A: myRuntype.underlying.fields["A"].optional() }).withConstraint(...)

Setting an optional property to required is, if we have:

const myRuntype = Record({
    A: Number.optional(),
    B: Number,
}).withConstraint(...);

then:

myRuntype.underlying.extend({ A: myRuntype.underlying.fields["A"].underlying }).withConstraint(...)