@rmk135 this seems like a big improvement for type safety, any change of this getting merged in?

@philipbjorge thank you for the contribution. This change looks good to me. I'm not sure why there was no generic propagation. Looks like a good bugfix.

There also should be some tests for that. Maybe we will need to fix them. Not sure why CI is not running checks for this PR.

@ZipFile can you please review this PR as well?

I don't have capacity to address any feedback here and no longer work at the company using this library -- But I've reached out to my previous teammates to see if they can carry the torch :)

Thanks for reviewing! Excited to see this project waking back up!

coverage: 93.745%. remained the same
when pulling 579081b on pachama:type-provider
into 46646b1 on ets-labs:develop.