Issues with current Route definitions

[chriskrycho]

Using the latest, I bumped into the following issues:

• beforeModel and afterModel (a) should be generic and (b) are overly strict. Should probably be something like this:

  beforeModel<T>(transition: Transition): Rsvp.Promise<T>;
  beforeModel(transition: Transition): void;

• Similarly, model should probably be something like

  model<T>(params: {}, transition: Transition): T | Rsvp.Promise<T>;
  model(params: {}, transition: Transition): void;

I also ran into issues with the ActionsHash bits combined with the user of Route.extend(SomeMixin), but I strongly suspect the mixin pattern is to blame there, rather than the Route definition.

[dwickern]

The actual return type would be something like Promise<any> | any | void, which reduces to any

[dwickern]

ActionsHash should be fixed in #24

[chriskrycho]

🤔 Is there anywhere you'd directly call the hook yourself? I guess not, thinking about it. I was thinking it'd be helpful to be able to define those to work in a specific way so that you'd know whether you were returning what you'd claim. I think if it returns any, the override a user supplies should be able to be more specific, right?

[dwickern]

Right, you could have a more specific return type annotation to check that you implemented it correctly.

In practice all my model hooks would return something like DS.Model | PromiseLike<DS.Model>, however we can't assume everyone uses E-D