Size Change: +7 B (0%)

Total Size: 1.82 MB

_{compressed-size-action}

We could introduce new types (see media) and certainly we should look at expanding more of what the type does. However, is that stopping us from making the field.type required?

In other words, can/should we make the field.type required now?

It makes sense for most fields to have a type and use that info in other places. Although, I think consumers could have fields that are used just for rendering really custom things and wouldn't care about sorting, editing or filtering. Why would they need to provide a type then?

What are our benefits of making it required?

I'm not sure I have a good answer for now. I agree that I see "type" as mandatory. These things come to my mind though:

• I think we should expand the rendering behavior more into types, for instance I would love for "date" fields to be auto-formatted without having to provide a render function. Maybe we can even support a format config (either in view or a default format in the field). This kind of things is yet to be explored.
• I feel the current types may not be enough to cover all the potential fields and wonder if we'll be assigning a random type just because the compiler says so.

Closing this until the type can absorb more of the render.

I think we should expand the rendering behavior more into types, for instance I would love for "date" fields to be auto-formatted without having to provide a render function. Maybe we can even support a format config (either in view or a default format in the field). This kind of things is yet to be explored.

Formats come back :)