Add zod routes to RPC

[danield9tqh]

Summary

Add ability to implement zod routes

Testing Plan

Documentation

Does this change require any updates to the Iron Fish Docs (ex. the RPC API
Reference)? If yes, link a
related documentation pull request for the website.

[ ] Yes

Breaking Change

Is this a breaking change? If yes, add notes below on why this is breaking and label it with breaking-change-rpc or breaking-change-sdk.

[ ] Yes

[NullSoldier]

Can you explain what the purpose of this is? It's just changing a schema library to a new one without any explanation.

This is a sort of auto-reject PR without further explanation if the goal is just to change libraries for the sake of change.

1. What does this random other library do that our current one doesn't do?
2. What issues are developers facing that this solves?

[danield9tqh]

The main downside of yup right now is it doesn't support some of the typescript types that we would ideally want to handle in our requests. Here's one example: https://github.com/iron-fish/ironfish/pull/5569/files#r1811059203 but there are others
I've run into too. I can look through the code for some examples

Also

• the node app uses zod and we can re-use some schemas there between the two codebases
• zod works better with typescript in general we can use utils like z.infer<> to create the request type automatically from the schema.

[NullSoldier]

The main downside of yup right now is it doesn't support some of the typescript types that we would ideally want to handle in our requests. Here's one example: https://github.com/iron-fish/ironfish/pull/5569/files#r1811059203 but there are others I've run into too. I can look through the code for some examples

Also

• the node app uses zod and we can re-use some schemas there between the two codebases
• zod works better with typescript in general we can use utils like z.infer<> to create the request type automatically from the schema.

I just commented on the linked example, which does not seem valid, but I could be wrong.

Also, yup has infer too but we explicitly don't use it for various reasons around ambiguety. I had issues with it back in the day but we're on 0.29.x and now it's at 1.0 so we could easily just upgrade and test how well infer has improved.

Did you upgrade yup and try the latest infer behaviour before deciding to throw out the baby with the bath water?