Passing Effects Directly to mapError: Clarity and Readability Concerns

Today I "realized" that you can pass the effect directly to mapError, and have the effeect and the mapping error in a single "functionCall". I kind of liked it, but I'm not sure how clear or readable that will be for other people and what is the general opinion on that.
Here is an example for reference:

const planningOption = yield* Effect.mapError(
       myFn({ id }),
       (error) =>
              new ExportError({
                message: "Failed",
                cause: error,
              }),
);

const planningOption = yield* Effect.mapError(
       myFn({ id }),
       (error) =>
              new ExportError({
                message: "Failed",
                cause: error,
              }),
);

const planningOption = yield* Effect.mapError(
       myFn({ id }),
       (error) =>
              new ExportError({
                message: "Failed",
                cause: error,
              }),
);

const planningOption = yield* Effect.mapError(
       myFn({ id }),
       (error) =>
              new ExportError({
                message: "Failed",
                cause: error,
              }),
);

No replies yetBe the first to reply to this messageJoin

Passing Effects Directly to mapError: Clarity and Readability Concerns

Similar Threads

Similar Threads

Similar Threads