Configuration System

[jasonkuhrt]

What

• Configuration keeps coming up, see related (below) for examples

• autocompletion and jsdoc should be optimized for

• so many questions/ways we could do this...

• function-object approach:

  app.settings({
    server: {
      experiments: {
        middleware: true,
      },
    },
  })      

• object approach:

  app.settings.server.experiments.middleware = true
  app.settings.server.logger.level = 'debug'
  app.settings.experiments.server.middleware = true
  app.settings.plugins.prisma.crud.relations.createable = false

• function-object and object approaches could be combined

• some screenshot / dx observations:

  • vscode gives awkward autocomplete for objects when curly braces are broken across lines.

    

  • vscode/ts does not give a preview of the settings one can set on param preview (is case for both type = ... and interface = ...)

    

  • user has no autocomplete with object unless they know how to summon the autocomplete with hotkey (ctrl-space). Even if they know, unclear how well that fits into their flow (e.g. they only know how via menu or have awkward bindings or are on a friend's computer with different customizations, ...)

    

  • errors can be visually loud

    

  • error information can be non-trivial

    

  • working with object properties leads to clean autocomplete compared to above:

    

• function-object approach however is JS idiomatic and a succinct experience

• to keep the mental model simple, app.settings should make its data readable in plain form:

      console.log('the port is %s', app.settings.server.port)

• so even with function-object for writes there would still be object for reads

• at that point, might as well permits writes and leave it up as a style decision? object read/write is the most "basic" but the function-object is there for sugar

about hierarchy

app.settings.<component>.*
app.settings.plugins.<plugin>.*

app.settings.logger.*
app.settings.server.*
app.settings.db.*
app.settings.plugins.prisma.*

Sometimes duplicated read/write fields under different paths might be nice. Take the experiments system for example:

app.settings.<component>.experiments.*
app.settings.experiments.<component>.*

Basically When something could be distributed or centralized, we should do both so that the user doesn't have to remember.

• settings would need to be applied before e.g. nexus schema
• because e.g. app.settings.plugins.prisma might affect how nexus-prisma will behave during nexus schema time
• this starts to feel complex when realizing we're offering up an api for settings where user could do pretty well anything... e.g. they can order their code how they want
• we'll just have to see if insurmountable issues arise or not
• absolute worst case would be an e.g. settings.ts convention

Related

Places where need for config has come up:

• 141

• 296

• https://github.com/prisma-labs/graphql-santa/issues/121#issuecomment-562340958

[Weakky]

A few thoughts:

app.settings.plugins.prisma.crud.relations.createable = false

I find this quite terrible 😢. As much as I understand the reasoning for considering the approach, the level of nesting is just too much if we ever get there. I'd rather have a nested object..

to keep the mental model simple, app.settings should make its data readable in plain form:

We currently use the approach of having app.settings being both a "reader" and a "writer". This raised the drawback of having the function prototype in the autocomplete of app.settings. We could simplify things by having app.settings.set({ ... }) and app.settings.get().*. It's not very elegant, but also still keeps "the mental model simple"

[jasonkuhrt]

Take inspiration from https://fastapi.tiangolo.com/advanced/settings/