Type Alias Job<R>

A middleware job.

The generated shape, refined where it is demonstrably weaker than what the server sends. Each override is a field where following the dump would lose information the client already has, so they are listed one by one rather than the shape being replaced wholesale — anything not named here comes from the generated entry and moves with it.

• state is a bare string in the dump. JobState is the set middleware uses, and tracking a job means comparing against it to know when the job is done.
• time_started / time_finished are modelled as ISO strings and arrive as {$date: <epoch ms>} — confirmed against a live appliance, and systemic rather than specific to jobs. Following the dump would make new Date(job.time_started) type-check and yield Invalid Date. Only the encoding is corrected: both stay nullable, because that is what the dump says and nothing observed contradicts it. Narrowing one and not the other was an inconsistency inherited from the hand-written shape.
• description, and progress.description, are returned by the server and absent from the dump.
• message_ids is unknown[]. They are the JSON-RPC request ids that started the job, and TrueNasApi.callAndGetJobId matches its own request id against them.
• result is unknown, which is honest for core.get_jobs in general: the method returns every job at once, of every kind. It stops being honest once you know which method you started, so it becomes the parameter — but it stays nullable, because a job that has not finished has no result. Measured on a live appliance: a RUNNING emission carries result: null, and only the terminal one carries the value. A failed job ends with null too, so reaching a terminal state is not on its own enough to assume a result — check error, or check state against JobState.Success.

progress is the one place the generated shape is kept rather than replaced. It gains description, which the server sends and the dump omits, and keeps percent nullable and extra present: the dump says percent may be null and nothing observed disproves that, so narrowing it would be inventing a guarantee rather than correcting one.