Instance methods Instances of Models are documents. Documents have many of their own built-in instance methods. We may also define our own custom document instance methods. // define a schema const animalSchema = new Schema({ name: String, type: String }, { // Assign a function to the "methods" object of our animalSchema through schema options. // By following this approach, there is no need to create a separate TS type to define the type of the instance functions. methods: { findSimilarTypes(cb) { return mongoose.model('Animal').find({ type: this.type }, cb); } } }); // Or, assign a function to the "methods" object of our animalSchema animalSchema.methods.findSimilarTypes = function(cb) { return mongoose.model('Animal').find({ type: this.type }, cb); }; Now all of our animal instances have a findSimilarTypes method available to them. const Animal = mongoose.model('Animal', animalSchema); const dog = new Animal({ type: 'dog' }); dog.findSimilarTypes((err, dogs) => { console.log(dogs); // woof }); Overwriting a default mongoose document method may lead to unpredictable results. See this for more details. The example above uses the Schema.methods object directly to save an instance method. You can also use the Schema.method() helper as described here. Do not declare methods using ES6 arrow functions (=>). Arrow functions explicitly prevent binding this, so your method will not have access to the document and the above examples will not work.

No one has requested it before so it's certainly not something we're planning to add.

To give a little more context, structures like this often come up in my work when dealing with NoSQL datastores, especially ones that rely heavily on JSON, like Firebase, where a records unique ID isn't part of the record itself, just a key that points to it. I think most Ruby/Rails projects tend towards use cases where these sort of datastores aren't appropriate/necessary, so it makes sense that this wouldn't come up as quickly as other structures.

Just coming here to voice my agreement that these warnings are annoying and exist in other libraries as well. For me this happened with svelma. I didn't write the library code, so I don't have complete control over it even though I agree there is an argument to be had around whether I should be notified anyway. In either case, these warnings should be easily disabled since libraries don't always get updated over night.

Maybe it's also a bug because every warning should be ignorable? Not sure.

I would like the compiler to add a property like canIgnore: false to the warning, if the warning cannot be disabled.

But library users are more numerous, and so their needs are more important.

small modules allow library authors to become lazy. Why include that six-line helper function when you can do a one-line `require`?

These are all things that make your life as a library author easier.

I think I know why: it’s because the small modules philosophy favours library authors (like Sindre) at the ultimate expense of library users.

Svelte will not offer a generic way to support style customizing via contextual class overrides (as we'd do it in plain HTML). Instead we'll invent something new that is entirely different. If a child component is provided and does not anticipate some contextual usage scenario (style wise) you'd need to copy it or hack around that via :global hacks.

Explicit interfaces are preferable, even if it places greater demand on library authors to design both their components and their style interfaces with these things in mind.

The RFC is more appropriate because it does not allow a parent to abritrarily control anything below it, that responsibility still relies on the component itself. Just because people have been passing classes round and overriding child styles for years doesn't mean it is a good choice and isn't something we wnat to encourage.

This has already forced me to forgo Svelte Material because I would like to add some actions to their components but I cannot and it does not make sense for them to cater to my specific use-case by baking random stuff into the library used by everyone.

The point of the feature is to not rely on the third-party author of the child component to add a prop for every action under the sun. Rather, they could just mark a recipient for actions on the component (assuming there is a viable target element), and then consumers of the library could extend the component using whatever actions they desire.

Your LazyLoad image is now inextensible. What if you want to add a class? Perhaps the author of LazyLoad thought of that and sets className onto the <img>. But will the author consider everything? Perhaps if we get {...state} attributes.

You must: reference each element you are extending using refs or an id add code in your oncreate and ondestroy for each element you are extending, which could become quite a lot if you have a lot of elements needing extension (anchors, form inputs, etc.)