[Table] Generic component

[HigherOrderLogic]

Description

Add generic to components such as UTable so that user can have better type control.

Additional context

UTable is a component that I use very often, and I usually find myself missing some properties of some rows. I think adding generics to suck components will help enhance the DX a lots.

[benjamincanac]

If I understand correctly, this would type the row when accessed via a slot?

<UTable :rows="items" :columns="columns">
  <template #quantity-data="{ row }">
    {{ row.quantity.value }}
  </template>
</UTable>

[bdebon]

I thinl you understand well @benjamincanac and I would also be super interested by that thing! 🥇

[HigherOrderLogic]

If I understand correctly, this would type the row when accessed via a slot?

I meant when using the component directly, with support for generic through vuejs/rfcs#436.

[benjamincanac]

What do you mean by using the component directly? Why would you care to type the rows if you're just using: <UTable :rows="rows" />?

[HigherOrderLogic]

Why would you care to type the rows if you're just using: ?

Generic row will means that we can enforce type, eg: sort as { column: keyof RowT; direction: "asc" | "desc"; }, by as keyof RowT | (first: RowT, second: RowT) => boolean.

[benjamincanac]

Honestly, I'm not really sure how to implement this if you have any clue!

[metkm]

Honestly, I'm not really sure how to implement this if you have any clue!

What's the reason you didn't use the function signature or the script setup syntax for components? https://vuejs.org/api/general#function-signature

typing generic components is not possible (?) without using the function signature

[metkm]

Why would you care to type the rows if you're just using: ?

Generic row will means that we can enforce type, eg: sort as { column: keyof RowT; direction: "asc" | "desc"; }, by as keyof RowT | (first: RowT, second: RowT) => boolean.

For now, you can do something like this

<UTable :rows="people">
  <template #name-data="{ row }: { row: typeof people[number] }">
    <p>{{ row }}</p>
  </template>
</UTable>

[benjamincanac]

@metkm When open-sourcing this library with the whole App Config theming system, I had to rewrite everything with defineComponent instead of script setup to allow prop defaults: https://github.com/nuxt/ui/blob/dev/src/runtime/components/elements/Button.vue#L68

[zoobzio]

Script setup syntax now supports default props: https://vuejs.org/api/sfc-script-setup.html#defineprops-defineemits

If we are OK w/ converting the component to use script setup syntax, I can create a proof-of-concept PR that implements generics.

Outside of the default props requirement, are there any other concerns that need to be kept in mind for such a conversion?

My only thought is that it seems desirable to use a consistent declaration syntax across all components defined in the library which could be an argument against such a change, but implementing generics could be a powerful feature for more components than just the table. Thoughts?

[benjamincanac]

I guess we can consider this for v3. As we're gonna rewrite most of the components, this could be a nice opportunity to make the switch.

[benjamincanac]

@zoobzio Also, when using <script setup>, it won't be possible to use the config from mergeConfig to use in defineProps defaults as it will be a local variable: https://github.com/nuxt/ui/blob/v2.14.0/src/runtime/components/elements/Button.vue#L33

Example:

[metkm]

@benjamincanac

Does it work with this syntax?

withDefaults(
  defineProps<{
    test: string
  }>(),
  {
    test: config
  }
)

[benjamincanac]

Won't work either: https://vuejs.org/api/sfc-script-setup.html#defineprops-defineemits

The options passed to defineProps and defineEmits will be hoisted out of setup into module scope. Therefore, the options cannot reference local variables declared in setup scope. Doing so will result in a compile error. However, it can reference imported bindings since they are in the module scope as well.

Also not recommended to use type-based declaration for a module like this, it adds an extra compilation step to transform it to the same code you'd wrote using runtime declaration.

By the way there is an awesome video from @danielroe about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA0ezJCGMuA

[zoobzio]

I opened a PR that implements a working example of how generics might look in the library, just migrating to script setup and applying a generic type to the rows prop as a starting point.

I also played around w/ typing the column key like keyof Row but this creates type errors for implementations that have custom column keys like action in their tables so I avoided it for now.

To solve the problem of local vars not playing nice w/ defineProps, I inverted the order to map defaults over the props using defu, something like:

import { defu } from 'defu'
import { config } from '#ui/ui.config'
const props = defineProps({
  ui: {
    type: Object,
    default: undefined
})
const { ui } = defu(props, config.default)

@benjamincanac
Generics are powerful and I would be happy to help bring them into this library which I like a lot, the implementation in this PR is a very small use case and there are some improvements that I have in mind that might be really cool for v3 depending on the direction you want to take it. Take a look and let me know your thoughts!

[benjamincanac]

Closing in favor of #2139.