including nostr specialized types

[antonioconselheiro]

exporting nip19 nostr specific types, implements: https://github.com/nbd-wtf/nostr-tools/issues/408

[fiatjaf]

Is this ready to merge?

[antonioconselheiro]

In my view yes, but I'm nobody. You think the regex in type guard are ok?

[fiatjaf]

Yes, except the types should be called "npub" not "npublic", "nsec" not "nsecret", but I can fix that after I merge.

[antonioconselheiro]

so, maybe nadress should be just nadrr

[antonioconselheiro]

I've changed the names in types, type guards and in the included unit tests

[fiatjaf]

I'll take a look at this soon, if I don't forget. Thank you.

[antonioconselheiro]

Thank you for Nostr sir, but talking about types exportations, can this lib export too the { write: boolean, read: boolean } relay config interface with a name? As you said, it doesn't hurt. If yes, I'll include in this pull request.

[fiatjaf]

It does hurt my ability to understand my own library.

[alexgleason]

Naming types is overrated. It's better to just copy the same type in multiple places, unless it's a truly universal interface.

[antonioconselheiro]

ok

[antonioconselheiro]

Another thing... There is already a regex to valid nip05 and would be nice include type guard for this too, NIP05 type is included in this PR but not the type guard, but to include this it will be in nip5.ts and not with the others in NostrTypeGuard object in core.ts.

Make sense include this in nip5.ts?

export const isNip05 = (value?: string | null): value is Nip05 => NIP05_REGEX.test(value || '')

[fiatjaf]

Yes. In nip.ts

[antonioconselheiro]

NIP05_REGEX matches for domain.com and name@domain.com, but my type in this PR for NIP05 is ${string}@${string}, is my type right? or should have a regex with @ as mandatory to validate?

[alexgleason]

NIP05_REGEX is wrong, I learned after looking at NIP-05 itself. It's too lenient. I was following what the person had done before, but the @ is actually required by the spec.

Btw I think this is still a pointless type.

[antonioconselheiro]

Thank you, but I can't see they as pointless types, I see a lot of value in this.

[antonioconselheiro]

This unit test requires NIP05_REGEX to include @ as optional 🤔, is this wrong? Or is this a particular validation of the function queryProfile?