Timestamps fields about camo HOT 9 OPEN

Okay so I'm finally getting back to this. Thinking about it some more, I think it would be a nice inclusion, just not enabled by default. I believe features like this should be opt-in instead of opt-out.

The timestamps property would likely have to be set using a static method. Like this:

class User extends Document {
    static timestamps() {
        return true;
    }
}

You could also return names of the created_at/updated_at fields for more customization:

class User extends Document {
    static timestamps() {
        return {
            created_at: 'createdTime',
            updated_at: 'updatedTime'
        };
    }
}

Doing it in the constructor, as shown by @vfreitas-, wouldn't work because then we couldn't access the timestamps property in any static methods (like User.findOneAndUpdate()).

Thoughts?

from camo.

Was a pull request submitted for this yet?

from camo.

You can have a boolean variable, that will decide if the timestamp fields will be added.

class User extends Document {
    constructor() {
        //... 

        this.timestamps = false; //default = true

        //...
    }
}

from camo.

Maybe not to be enable by default, but that it's a way to go.

from camo.

👍 +1

from camo.

I'll consider it. I hesitate to add data by default to people's models, but
maybe it can be an option.

I'll leave this open for discussion for a bit to gauge interest.

Thanks!

Scott
On Jan 29, 2016 4:01 PM, "Michael De Abreu" [email protected]
wrote:

[image: 👍] +1

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#40 (comment).

from camo.

What about use a timestamp decorator?

@timestamp
class User extends Document {
}

You could pass timestamp field names too:

@timestamp({
  created_at: 'createdTime',
  updated_at: 'updatedTime'
})
class Use extends Document {
}

from camo.

I don't think ES6 have decorators. For what I understand after googling,
decorators are suppose to come in 2016 with ES2016(ES7).

However, for a long proposal that would be a good idea.

2016-05-31 19:51 GMT-04:00 Samir El Aouar [email protected]:

What about use a timestamp decorator?

@timestamp
class User extends Document {
}

You could pass timestamp field names too:

@timestamp({
created_at: 'createdTime',
updated_at: 'updatedTime'
})
class Use extends Document {
}

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#40 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AKBWABMfZIaNHx8kkcIla_N6dQQvoOE6ks5qHMmNgaJpZM4HNCJn
.

from camo.

Yep, ES6 does not have decorators. As nice as this feature would be, we'd
then have to require application code to use a transpiler like Babel, which
does not work with Camo's goal.

I'd like to implement this feature in ES6 soon, but if anyone would like to
submit a PR for it sooner, I'd be happy to accept.
On May 31, 2016 7:50 PM, "Michael De Abreu" [email protected]
wrote:

I don't think ES6 have decorators. For what I understand after googling,
decorators are suppose to come in 2016 with ES2016(ES7).

However, for a long proposal that would be a good idea.

2016-05-31 19:51 GMT-04:00 Samir El Aouar [email protected]:

What about use a timestamp decorator?

@timestamp
class User extends Document {
}

You could pass timestamp field names too:

@timestamp({
created_at: 'createdTime',
updated_at: 'updatedTime'
})
class Use extends Document {
}

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#40 (comment)
,
or mute the thread
<
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AKBWABMfZIaNHx8kkcIla_N6dQQvoOE6ks5qHMmNgaJpZM4HNCJn

.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#40 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/ACz-bzEpoiZANjb7GPf5SLMXJkeVOpiQks5qHR2ngaJpZM4HNCJn
.

from camo.