somehow I missed that haha, yeah I think we should use whatever is idiomatic for the target language, so SGTM, I'll fix that today

370c365 thanks!

oh actually I just remembered why it's this way, because TS will serialize the fields incorrectly. If fields are defined as project_id in the schema, then you get projectId since — as far as I know — there's no easy way to map JSON property names in TS like there is in Go for example.

because TS will serialize the fields incorrectly. If fields are defined as project_id in the schema, then you get projectId

Not sure what you mean here. Looked at the ts client code and this is what I understand is happening:

• canonically we use snake_case in the schema
• we JSON encode field names to snake_case server side
• ts client receives and parses the objects as is
• types match the snake_case fields in the underlying object so everything works at run time

there's no easy way to map JSON property names in TS like there is in Go for example

Yea I guess we can't do this within JSON.parse reviver but shouldn't it be straightforward to recurse on the object fields and create a new object with camel case?

It's definitely doable to recurse, but I'm not sure it's really worth the pain, I don't mind the snake-case much personally but I don't use any linters. If there is a clean way to do it in TS I'm definitely cool with it, but keep in mind it has to work for regular JS as well as TS.

I think we can maybe use the JSON.stringify/parse callbacks, looks like we'd have to return undefined in stringify so it doesn't add the value, and then this[camelCased] = value.

Played a bit with JSON.parse callback but couldn't get it to work on firefox:

function camelize(str) {
    capitalize = (str) => {str.charAt(0).toUpperCase() + str.slice(1)}
    tok = str.split("_")
    ret = tok[0]
    tok.slice(1).forEach((t) => ret += capitalize(t))
    return ret
}

JSON.parse(o, (key, value) => {
  this[camelize(key)] = value
  delete(this[key])
})

I guess if you return undefined it just throws the whole thing away? Maybe I missed something.

This seems a bit hacky anyways and I guess it would also depend on JSON.parse/stringify implementation in the engine so I wouldn't go for this approach.

I'll do a PR so let's see how it can be implemented.