Closed Jiraiya43 closed 2 weeks ago
I'm not sold on this. We try to restrict ourselves to the most common primitive data types, not subtypes. If we add a uuid
type, what's stopping us from adding an ip
type, or an email
type?
In fact, when I submitted the PR, I had the same thought. However, I thought that rather than restrict the options, we could use Faker as a generator and stick to the types it offers. What particularly frustrated me was that when I renamed the field to "uuid", it generated an example UUID, but when I set the type to "uuid", an example"string" type was provided instead.
That's an interesting proposal. Will need to consider it some more.
In fact, when I submitted the PR, I had the same thought. However, I thought that rather than restrict the options, we could use Faker as a generator and stick to the types it offers. What particularly frustrated me was that when I renamed the field to "uuid", it generated an example UUID, but when I set the type to "uuid", an example"string" type was provided instead.
I know it's been a while, but this is a good idea, and I could get behind it if you want to implement it. Esssentially:
Closing this PR and making an issue from that.
This pull request introduces support for UUID (Universally Unique Identifier) types within your application.