Improve parameters for the RQL contains operator

[AaronTrippaers]

What do I want to achieve?

Change the RQL function signature of contains to and execute the and function on the list:

contains: (field: string, ...list: RQLString[]) => RQLBuilder;

Why is it better?

• The and is always needed when providing an expression. If only one check is performed the contains operator can be easily removed.

// Following operation:
.contains("data",rqlBuilder().gt("heartrate", "60").intermediate())
// Can be replaced with:
gt("data.heartrate","60")

• The function signature above makes it in my opinion more clear that the checks have to be given separately and that the following code won't work.

.contains("data",rqlBuilder().gt("heartrate", "60").lt("heartrate", "90").intermediate())

• It makes the code more concise and readable by removing the and function and its intermediate call. See the difference between the 2 examples below.

Before:

.contains(
    "data",
    rqlBuilder().and(
            rqlBuilder().gt("heartrate", "60").intermediate(),
            rqlBuilder().lt("heartrate", "90").intermediate()
    ).intermediate()
)

After:

.contains(
    "data",
    rqlBuilder().gt("heartrate", "60").intermediate(),
    rqlBuilder().lt("heartrate", "90").intermediate()
)

[FilipAben]

I agree it would be better, as long as it's done in a way that it doesn't break existing applications.

So

.contains(
    "data",
    rqlBuilder().and(
            rqlBuilder().gt("heartrate", "60").intermediate(),
            rqlBuilder().lt("heartrate", "90").intermediate()
    ).intermediate()
)

should still work fine

[AaronTrippaers]

@FilipAben I have a proposal PR here: #604. It still supports the example you gave. The url will just contain an unnecessary but not breaking and statement as you can see below:

?contains(and(and(gt(heartrate,60),lt(heartrate,60))))