Skip to content

feat: deep equal support #20

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 29, 2025
Merged

feat: deep equal support #20

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 29, 2025

Conversation

josdejong
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR:

  • implements deep equal support (for eq, ne, uniq, in and not in)
  • throws errors when comparing unsupported data types (for gt, gte, lt, lte, and sort)
  • makes sure all functions that do something with equality use the same logic

See #8

Discussion point: how to compare strings? Just the dumb way, or do we want to support supporting strings lexicographically? The latter requires way more code, and can give in unexpected results. I think we should keep it simple, or at most, parse strings containing a number and compare the numeric value.

@lateapexearlyspeed I would love to hear your feedback on this topic.

…and throw errors when comparing unsupported data types (in `gt`, `gte`, `lt`, `lte`, and `sort`)
@lateapexearlyspeed
Copy link

I think we should keep it simple, or at most, parse strings containing a number and compare the numeric value

I agree to make deep equal based on primitive data type level, not consider numeric value inside string value.

@josdejong
Copy link
Collaborator Author

👍 thanks for your feedback. Merging deep equal support now

@josdejong josdejong merged commit 36678da into develop Apr 29, 2025
4 checks passed
@josdejong josdejong deleted the feat/8-deep-equal-support branch April 29, 2025 08:58
Copy link

🎉 This PR is included in version 5.0.0 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants