fix: srv.entities('namespace') is not an official API

[sjvans]

and will be removed in cds^10

in general, i see a mismatch between the types for LinkedCSN and https://cap.cloud.sap/docs/node.js/cds-reflect#linked-csn. but that can also be ignorance on my part...

related docs pr: capire/docs#2267

[daogrady]

So from what I understand, the namespace-filter has been removed from specific services, but is still available from the cds facade.
If that is the intention, then looks good to me. Thanks! 🙂

[sjvans]

So from what I understand, the namespace-filter has been removed from specific services, but is still available from the cds facade. If that is the intention, then looks good to me. Thanks! 🙂

right. the namespace filter is only available for model.entities(). (cds.entities now points to (cds.model || cds.db.model).entities instead of cds.db.entities.)

what i was not able to reflect is that the namespace filter is still available until cds^10.

[daogrady]

So it is still available as of cds9? Then we should not remove it, but add @deprecated will be removed in cds10 to it instead, no?

[sjvans]

So it is still available as of cds9? Then we should not remove it, but add @deprecated will be removed in cds10 to it instead, no?

yes, but how? of

export type ModelPartFn<T extends any_> = IterableMap<T> & ((namespace: string) => IterableMap<T>)

only the ((namespace: string) => IterableMap<T>) part is deprecated.
i didn't manage to express that.

[daogrady]

Ah, I see! That is indeed a bit tricky.
That can be expressed by changing the relevant part of the type from a lambda to a callable object:

// signature of a function that also has property `x` attached
type F_old = ((p: string) => number) & { x: boolean }

// type of an object that has property `x`, and can be called like a function. In that case, you can add annotations to the call signature.
type F_new = {
  /** @deprecated because of reasons */
  (p: string): number,
  x: boolean
} 

Demo

[sjvans]

Ah, I see! That is indeed a bit tricky.

thanks!

[daogrady]

I don't think this is a valid annotation?
microsoft/TypeScript#50369

[sjvans]

it isn't, but it should be ;)
i added for documentation purposes, but we can remove as well

[daogrady]

agree that it should be. As it does not cause any errors, let's just keep it in.
My approval stands! 🙂

[daogrady]

( = feel free to merge once you are happy with the PR's state)