add serviceEffects and change serviceConstants semantic (fixes #634)

[sledorze]

No description provided.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 48df8f4

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
@effect/io	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[tim-smart]

I'm thinking we simplify this to:

/**
 * @since 1.0.0
 * @category context
 */
export const serviceConstants: <I, S>(tag: Context.Tag<I, S>) => { [K in keyof S]: Effect<I, never, S[K]> } =
  effect.serviceConstants

Then we won't need to add the same function to the other ecosystem packages.

[tim-smart]

Also, serviceFunctions could be:

/**
 * @since 1.0.0
 * @category context
 */
export const serviceFunctions: <I, S>(
  tag: Context.Tag<I, S>
) => {
  [K in { [K in keyof S]: S[K] extends (...args: Array<any>) => any ? K : never }[keyof S]]: [S[K]] extends
    [(...args: infer Args) => infer R]
    ? R extends Effect<infer R, infer E, infer A> ? (...args: Args) => Effect<I | R, E, A>
    : (...args: Args) => Effect<I, never, R>
    : never
} = effect.serviceFunctions

Which would also support non-effect returning functions.

[mikearnaldi]

we can't merge the two because we can't distinguish () => any with () => Effect, we'd need to check the return type and always flatten when it's an effect but that would end up flattening also the case where for example the return value is an option or an effect that shouldn't be flattened

[sledorze]

Also remember that implementation wise, we can't know the nature of the returning type at value level

[tim-smart]

for example the return value is an option or an effect that shouldn't be flattened

I think this is already an issue due to the type augmentation.

But it does introduce an expectation gap, so yes I think we should not do it. Just make the constants change.

I had a go at the implementation here: 5da6a97

[sledorze]

ofc core.isEffect ;)

[mikearnaldi]

Not really if we keep the functions and effect returning functions separated

…

On Fri, 15 Sept 2023, 17:10 Tim, ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In src/internal/effect.ts <#659 (comment)>: > @@ -1842,6 +1842,24 @@ export const serviceFunctions = <I, S>( /** @internal */ export const serviceConstants = <I, S>( for example the return value is an option or an effect that shouldn't be flattened I think this is already an issue due to the type augmentation. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#659 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFZAKCTB4LATB32A6LGOCKDX2RVWTANCNFSM6AAAAAA4QJ3CRA> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>