[WIP] refactor: replace ajv with zod #53150
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
SukkaW
requested review from
timneutkens,
ijjk,
shuding,
huozhi,
feedthejim and
ztanner
as code owners
|
Allow CI Workflow Run
Note: this should only be enabled once the PR is ready to go and can only be enabled by a maintainer |
|
One thing to note is that I'm working on bundling the parts of Next.js into split bundles for perf reasons. Zod is a deps, but only for the app router layer at the moment. This would bring it to the build/server layer I think, which is probably fine, just flagging. Is AJV much worse than zod in terms of size/perf? |
My initial idea is to reduce the Besides, Zod's schema is much easier to write and maintain compares to ajv's schema, and the typescript support is also much better. There are also potential downsizes. Unlike ajv, Zod doesn't have a pre-compile option. And we have to create human-readable messages from Zod's error as well (Currently, ajv has |
|
Worth to share https://github.com/moltar/typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks for impact. Zod is probably the most convenient. |
4 tasks
kodiakhq bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 5, 2023
The PR supersedes the #53150, which is way too outdated, has way too many conflicts, and also heavily relies on GitHub Copilot (which makes the progress slow and tedious). The PR uses [`json-schema-to-zod`](https://github.com/StefanTerdell/json-schema-to-zod) (instead of the GitHub Copilot) to generate the zod schema, and manually replaces all generated `z.customRefine` with my hand-written zod schema. TODO: - [x] Convert schema - [x] Reduce `z.any()` usage - [x] Create human-readable errors from the `ZodError` - [x] Update test cases to reflect the latest error message ----- The benefit of using zod over ajv: - Easier maintenance: zod schema is straightforward to compose. - Better typescript support: config schema now strictly reflects the `NextConfig` type. - Smaller installation size: by replacing `ajv` and `@segment/ajv-human-errors` w/ `zod`, I am able to reduce installation size by 114 KiB. - Better Extension: the zod error message is easy to customize. ----- In the previous PR #56083, @feedthejim replaces `zod` w/ `superstruct`. `superstruct` is lightweight and fast, which makes it perfect for creating simple schemas for RSC payload. But, this also means `superstruct` has its limitations compared to `zod`: - `superstruct`'s syntax is different, and some utilities's usage is counter-intuitive: - `z.array(z.string()).gt(1)` vs `s.size(s.array(s.string()), 1)` - `z.numer().gt(1)` vs `s.size(s.number(), 1)`, `s.min(s.number(), 1)` - `z.boolean().optional().nullable()` vs `s.nullable(s.optional(z.boolean()))` - `superstruct` has weaker TypeScript support and worse DX compared to `zod` when composing huge schema: - `zod.ZodType + z.object()` can provide a more detailed type mismatch message on which specific property is the culprit, while `Describe + s.object()` provides almost no information at all. - `zod`'s schema is more powerful - `z.function()` supports `z.args()` and `z.returns()`, while `superstruct` only has `s.func()` - zod also has Promise type `z.promise()` and intersection type `z.and()` - `superstruct`'s error is harder to parse compared to `zod`'s `ZodError` So in the PR, I re-introduced `zod` for `next.config.js` validation.
huozhi
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 5, 2023
The PR supersedes the #53150, which is way too outdated, has way too many conflicts, and also heavily relies on GitHub Copilot (which makes the progress slow and tedious). The PR uses [`json-schema-to-zod`](https://github.com/StefanTerdell/json-schema-to-zod) (instead of the GitHub Copilot) to generate the zod schema, and manually replaces all generated `z.customRefine` with my hand-written zod schema. TODO: - [x] Convert schema - [x] Reduce `z.any()` usage - [x] Create human-readable errors from the `ZodError` - [x] Update test cases to reflect the latest error message ----- The benefit of using zod over ajv: - Easier maintenance: zod schema is straightforward to compose. - Better typescript support: config schema now strictly reflects the `NextConfig` type. - Smaller installation size: by replacing `ajv` and `@segment/ajv-human-errors` w/ `zod`, I am able to reduce installation size by 114 KiB. - Better Extension: the zod error message is easy to customize. ----- In the previous PR #56083, @feedthejim replaces `zod` w/ `superstruct`. `superstruct` is lightweight and fast, which makes it perfect for creating simple schemas for RSC payload. But, this also means `superstruct` has its limitations compared to `zod`: - `superstruct`'s syntax is different, and some utilities's usage is counter-intuitive: - `z.array(z.string()).gt(1)` vs `s.size(s.array(s.string()), 1)` - `z.numer().gt(1)` vs `s.size(s.number(), 1)`, `s.min(s.number(), 1)` - `z.boolean().optional().nullable()` vs `s.nullable(s.optional(z.boolean()))` - `superstruct` has weaker TypeScript support and worse DX compared to `zod` when composing huge schema: - `zod.ZodType + z.object()` can provide a more detailed type mismatch message on which specific property is the culprit, while `Describe + s.object()` provides almost no information at all. - `zod`'s schema is more powerful - `z.function()` supports `z.args()` and `z.returns()`, while `superstruct` only has `s.func()` - zod also has Promise type `z.promise()` and intersection type `z.and()` - `superstruct`'s error is harder to parse compared to `zod`'s `ZodError` So in the PR, I re-introduced `zod` for `next.config.js` validation.
huozhi
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 5, 2023
The PR supersedes the #53150, which is way too outdated, has way too many conflicts, and also heavily relies on GitHub Copilot (which makes the progress slow and tedious). The PR uses [`json-schema-to-zod`](https://github.com/StefanTerdell/json-schema-to-zod) (instead of the GitHub Copilot) to generate the zod schema, and manually replaces all generated `z.customRefine` with my hand-written zod schema. TODO: - [x] Convert schema - [x] Reduce `z.any()` usage - [x] Create human-readable errors from the `ZodError` - [x] Update test cases to reflect the latest error message ----- The benefit of using zod over ajv: - Easier maintenance: zod schema is straightforward to compose. - Better typescript support: config schema now strictly reflects the `NextConfig` type. - Smaller installation size: by replacing `ajv` and `@segment/ajv-human-errors` w/ `zod`, I am able to reduce installation size by 114 KiB. - Better Extension: the zod error message is easy to customize. ----- In the previous PR #56083, @feedthejim replaces `zod` w/ `superstruct`. `superstruct` is lightweight and fast, which makes it perfect for creating simple schemas for RSC payload. But, this also means `superstruct` has its limitations compared to `zod`: - `superstruct`'s syntax is different, and some utilities's usage is counter-intuitive: - `z.array(z.string()).gt(1)` vs `s.size(s.array(s.string()), 1)` - `z.numer().gt(1)` vs `s.size(s.number(), 1)`, `s.min(s.number(), 1)` - `z.boolean().optional().nullable()` vs `s.nullable(s.optional(z.boolean()))` - `superstruct` has weaker TypeScript support and worse DX compared to `zod` when composing huge schema: - `zod.ZodType + z.object()` can provide a more detailed type mismatch message on which specific property is the culprit, while `Describe + s.object()` provides almost no information at all. - `zod`'s schema is more powerful - `z.function()` supports `z.args()` and `z.returns()`, while `superstruct` only has `s.func()` - zod also has Promise type `z.promise()` and intersection type `z.and()` - `superstruct`'s error is harder to parse compared to `zod`'s `ZodError` So in the PR, I re-introduced `zod` for `next.config.js` validation.
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is an ongoing PR that replaces Next.js'
ajvbased config validation with the Zod (which is already a dependency of Next.js).