queryOptions should to pass initialData with a callback that is potentially returning undefined about query HOT 9 OPEN

I don't think your proposed solution is right though. I think we should rather extend UndefinedInitialDataOptions

When looking at the types more closely I believe you are correct.

According to my understanding the idea is that UndefinedInitialDataOptions will return query result where data is possibly undefined, while DefinedInitialDataOptions returns query result where the data is required, so the consumer wouldn't need to handle the optional undefined value. According to that logic the option of () => T | undefined can result in a query that is possibly undefined, so it should be in the UndefinedInitlaDataOptions (Even though it's confusing, because the initialData is technically "defined").

I'll fix the PR accordingly.

from query.

okay interestingly, we have test that cover this case already, and they don't fail:

It doesn't fail because you use useQuery directly. The bug (both in angular and react) reproduces when you use queryOptions

from query.

Opened a PR that fixes this: #7351

from query.

Hi @TkDodo I'm not sure about this one. Code is identical to React adapter and I don't think initialData is supposed to be able to undefined?

from query.

The problematic types are defined in angular-query-experimental.

If an undefined return type is not supported than I'm not sure how the common use case will work. This example (from the docs) currently wouldn't work:

result = injectQuery(() => ({
  queryKey: ['todo', this.todoId()],
  queryFn: () => fetch('/todos'),
  initialData: () => {
    // Use a todo from the 'todos' query as the initial data for this todo query
    return this.queryClient
      .getQueryData(['todos'])
      ?.find((d) => d.id === this.todoId())
  },
}))

Also, this works in react-query:

const x = useQuery({
  initialData: () => undefined,
})

from query.

it should work, but it also doesn't work in react query:

https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?#code/JYWwDg9gTgLgBAbzgRwK4FMoE8DyYbAQB2AznAL5wBmUEIcA5AAIwCGpbAxgNYD0U6VpxgBaNJiwMAUFOBEYmKkPRwAKhAAmERFLhxgGgFxwSMKHIDmAbl1wCMADbpjp80WtTyM9AA9IsOE5iUztNCABFDGw8AmI4AF44AAoDFzNLOAAfOCJUBwcASgSAPltxaPxCUiSEWz1yrABpdCxjAG0GGDCGABp9DQBdHrqUKKwAMSJjJKL40r0FuAAFWhBgEnQAOgESCAcAN3QakcXUxgBGXpOF+ydjBgARbQAZVlQiDWwrxb1yAuHTkRgARWA4Hqw2NMCsZ1FosnB3hp0FQ5OgNCUER9kaiNACKAUrEA

I don't think your proposed solution is right though. I think we should rather extend UndefinedInitialDataOptions to be:

export type UndefinedInitialDataOptions<
  TQueryFnData = unknown,
  TError = DefaultError,
  TData = TQueryFnData,
  TQueryKey extends QueryKey = QueryKey,
> = UseQueryOptions<TQueryFnData, TError, TData, TQueryKey> & {
-  initialData?: undefined
-  initialData?: undefined | () => undefined
}

thoughts ?

from query.

sorry, that doesn't work. This seems to be the correct diff:

- initialData?: undefined
+ initialData?: undefined | InitialDataFunction<TQueryFnData>

as shown in this reproduction: https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?#code/JYWwDg9gTgLgBDAnmApnA3nAIgQxjgFRwHMAabFAMxwFcAbGAUSimnIEUaUpEBpFROQCSAO2AxgOOrnwAxGiIDGEiCLgBfOJVYg4AcgAC+EQGd8igNYB6AI5ceAWkXQUegFChIsBMjSYAqiYonNyIAPJgKqYaWjr6Rjim5tZQKDjKDnah7m4oAB5e8EiocP4iACZUwCIo5aLiktJ4OBFRJgA8bnBwBCE8siIyOHAAvHAKFiIQAO4ipF09zKxQoxTU9EwsbAsEQ6u99ogDQ-PdB6H8iHD5MCgVJnB9fAKrT5fzAHyrgcGHrcCqDrnfqDZrkAhLNg9E49N4CL4AMgwC2qDSkQwA-AAucYVKo1cpwAA+cHqEnRzXkSii7WBR1B+A+bnUbjcxTQADlVGVKpRqrUAOI0HBQcq0r5jAjXPK3e643n8wkYuA1ABu3DgOIIrPyhR8JSw+NqZMaQ3+gM6Zyex2aqwmU1mp0WWxWY0N6wYkKgTt2tsl1oZOB9cKuNzu5QeIdeh3ebglpSCT3NplpAZhEJd4PTIcRyO6qPJTXwWIW3RJXJEPKN5SFIrFdJtjNLxLgAApWwBKUZfCtVvkE2ui1OHRs4D4d5k6grQeCUBTKAFqLI8ZMdHZpv24yYzOY7L2rd20T2ZnZ7f0jwPBmMvMNyqNjEOfVsLCCRRcmHHuxUmin4VfD0JR3BL0szBWFr0QD55g7T9qx-IsWjfC0G0vZ1llA-BwRzOAkXQBZl2eRBP2aIhiAAnh3nAwDAyZFlcmnbw52pRc4AI-91wvM8twdXczn3N0qCPTZ0NPTcUJODiLhvGVw0jCDoykwQ42fbpXzaHE+2-MRCzNJCU3EsCM3Q6FDJzaCNLxftjW001mn-AzMLQqFfUculLlzPDugIy5iPwUjyMIrDOOaWipz1JiF1UVi-j0kxWzU98cXtHcu08uBUhgGgoDUBLAUnVlqluKBqEUNACAgcoIDzOBgHKHEzCgapiAAbgWCQYDoFB6pgRqRBa-LdRnOBnCSBAKogJM9NWVtau63riBbER6DoLsRiZLyYraVs0o2xScQAbT0GBxr0chaoAXSdXaQRxTtu2bboAAUdGAIIADpUhMCA6HVbaHu6Gq6v0ABGU7-u6drOpxPQsCqgAZWgKh4MGAYB9QOyumqbN-HBbpgnpxpbBQFQJbt5WrJ10eaoA

from query.

okay interestingly, we have test that cover this case already, and they don't fail:

🤔

from query.

I fixed the PR per feedback: #7351

from query.