Unexpected type mismatch for sqlite integer boolean mode

Hi, you guys added boolean support for sqlite recently (thanks for that!!). It correctly expects

and

as the values in the db but I've noticed when using a

default(0)

default(0)

default(0)

default(0) it throws a ts error (see below). Setting it as a boolean

default(false)

default(false)

default(false)

default(false) does not.

I'd expect to set a value in line with the expectation but perhaps my understanding is wrong? Is it a bug?

export const foo = sqliteTable("foo", {
  isFooBar: integer("is_foo_bar", { mode: "boolean" })
    .notNull()
    .default(0) 
          // ^ Argument of type '0' is not assignable to parameter of type 'boolean | SQL<unknown>'.ts(2345)
});

export const foo = sqliteTable("foo", {
  isFooBar: integer("is_foo_bar", { mode: "boolean" })
    .notNull()
    .default(0) 
          // ^ Argument of type '0' is not assignable to parameter of type 'boolean | SQL<unknown>'.ts(2345)
});

export const foo = sqliteTable("foo", {
  isFooBar: integer("is_foo_bar", { mode: "boolean" })
    .notNull()
    .default(0) 
          // ^ Argument of type '0' is not assignable to parameter of type 'boolean | SQL<unknown>'.ts(2345)
});

export const foo = sqliteTable("foo", {
  isFooBar: integer("is_foo_bar", { mode: "boolean" })
    .notNull()
    .default(0) 
          // ^ Argument of type '0' is not assignable to parameter of type 'boolean | SQL<unknown>'.ts(2345)
});

ijd•6/27/23, 11:11 PM

I think this is likely the intended behavior. If you have a boolean column, you’re trying to store a true/false. This is the mapping between two language-specific expressions of true/false.

GraemeOP•6/28/23, 9:32 AM

Yeah, it makes sense logically for sure. I think the confusion lies wherein the type is an integer with a boolean "mode". Drizzle also state it's set as a 0 or 1.

This allows you to operate boolean values in your code and Drizzle stores them as 0 and 1 integer values in the database.

Is there a transformation under the hood going on or am I reading too much into this?

My understanding was that we should be doing this

mutation({
  isFooBar: 0 // 0 is entered into the db
})

mutation({
  isFooBar: 0 // 0 is entered into the db
})

But are we saying we should be doing:

mutation({
  isFooBar: false // 0 is still entered into the db
})

mutation({
  isFooBar: false // 0 is still entered into the db
})

GraemeOP•6/28/23, 9:34 AM

Only one way to find out... but just keen to discuss it so I ensure I'm not misinterpreting

Andrii Sherman•6/29/23, 7:28 PM

Yeah, so we made true mapped as 1

Andrii Sherman•6/29/23, 7:28 PM

and false mapped as 0

Andrii Sherman•6/29/23, 7:28 PM

just ot make a boolean mode in code and still have 0 and 1 in database

GraemeOP•7/3/23, 2:55 PM

Thanks @Andrew Sherman

SteveS•10/14/23, 5:23 PM

Just running into this myself and I'm not sure I understand the design philosophy. An integer taking "true" or "false" as a value seems like an anti-pattern to me.

Unexpected type mismatch for sqlite integer boolean mode

Similar Threads

Similar Threads

Similar Threads