refactor: split schemas & types

[Llandy3d]

are we sure we want to keep this refactor ?

In retrospective having the same type and schema sharing names seemed like leading to cleaner code and ergonomics 😕

We would just have to keep in mind that a schema is also a type, but after that it did seems better indeed.

[going-confetti]

In retrospective having the same type and schema sharing names seemed like leading to cleaner code and ergonomics 😕

I don't really mind them sharing the names, although I have a stronger opinion on having types and schemas with the same names in the same files. If you prefer types and schemas sharing names, you can remove the suffixes from the schema objects names, but leave the folder structure as it is in this PR

[going-confetti]

LGTM! I added a separate comment on types and schemas sharing names - take a look before merging

[Llandy3d]

In retrospective having the same type and schema sharing names seemed like leading to cleaner code and ergonomics 😕

I don't really mind them sharing the names, although I have a stronger opinion on having types and schemas with the same names in the same files. If you prefer types and schemas sharing names, you can remove the suffixes from the schema objects names, but leave the folder structure as it is in this PR

that could lead to more confusion or actually to errors I think when we need to import both type & schema in a single file, let's keep the Schema naming, I've seen another tool (Valibot) actually having this naming convention 🤔

[going-confetti]

that could lead to more confusion or actually to errors I think when we need to import both type & schema in a single file, let's keep the Schema naming, I've seen another tool (Valibot) actually having this naming convention 🤔

We don't do it yet, but if the need arises you can do the following:

import { TestRule } from '@/types/rules'
import { TestRule as TestRuleSchme } from '@/schemas/rules'