React router #343
|
|
@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ export function onNewAssetRequest (name, id, channelName, channelId, extension)
|
|||
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export function addRequestToPreviousRequests (id, error, key) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function addRequestToRequestList (id, error, key) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.PREVIOUS_REQUEST_ADD,
|
||||
data: { id, error, key },
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
|
@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
|||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
const error = show.displayAsset.error;
|
||||
const status = show.displayAsset.status;
|
||||
// select asset
|
||||
const request = show.previousRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
const request = show.requestList[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
const assetKey = request.key;
|
||||
const asset = show.assetList[assetKey];
|
||||
// return props
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
|
|
@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ import View from './view';
|
|||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
// select asset
|
||||
const request = show.previousRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
const request = show.requestList[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
const assetKey = request.key;
|
||||
const asset = show.assetList[assetKey];
|
||||
// return props
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
|
|
@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ import View from './view';
|
|||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
// select title
|
||||
const request = show.previousRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
const request = show.requestList[show.request.id];
|
||||
const assetKey = request.key;
|
||||
const asset = show.assetList[assetKey];
|
||||
let title;
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -2,12 +2,11 @@ import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
|||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
console.log('mapping state to props', show);
|
||||
// select request info
|
||||
const requestId = show.request.id;
|
||||
// select asset info
|
||||
let asset;
|
||||
const request = show.previousRequests[requestId] || null;
|
||||
const request = show.requestList[requestId] || null;
|
||||
const assetList = show.assetList;
|
||||
if (request && assetList) {
|
||||
const assetKey = request.key; // note: just store this in the request
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -2,12 +2,11 @@ import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
|||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
console.log('mapping state to props', show);
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
// select request info
|
||||
const requestId = show.request.id;
|
||||
// select asset info
|
||||
let asset;
|
||||
const request = show.previousRequests[requestId] || null;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const request = show.requestList[requestId] || null;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const assetList = show.assetList;
|
||||
if (request && assetList) {
|
||||
const assetKey = request.key; // note: just store this in the request
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
|
|
@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
|||
// select request info
|
||||
const requestId = show.request.id;
|
||||
// select request
|
||||
const previousRequest = show.previousRequests[requestId] || null;
|
||||
const previousRequest = show.requestList[requestId] || null;
|
||||
// select channel
|
||||
let channel;
|
||||
if (previousRequest) {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ import View from './view';
|
|||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
// select channel key
|
||||
const request = show.previousRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
const request = show.requestList[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
const channelKey = request.key;
|
||||
// select channel claims
|
||||
const channel = show.channelList[channelKey] || null;
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
|
|
@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ const initialState = {
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
type : null,
|
||||
id : null,
|
||||
},
|
||||
previousRequests: {},
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
requestList: {},
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
channelList : {},
|
||||
assetList : {},
|
||||
displayAsset : {
|
||||
|
|
@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ export default function (state = initialState, action) {
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
// store requests
|
||||
case actions.PREVIOUS_REQUEST_ADD:
|
||||
return Object.assign({}, state, {
|
||||
previousRequests: Object.assign({}, state.previousRequests, {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
requestList: Object.assign({}, state.requestList, {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
[action.data.id]: {
|
||||
error: action.data.error,
|
||||
key : action.data.key,
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|||
import { call, put, takeLatest } from 'redux-saga/effects';
|
||||
import * as actions from 'constants/show_action_types';
|
||||
import { addRequestToPreviousRequests, onRequestError, addAssetToAssetList } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
import { addRequestToRequestList, onRequestError, addAssetToAssetList } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
import { getLongClaimId, getShortId, getClaimData } from 'api/assetApi';
|
||||
|
||||
function* newAssetRequest (action) {
|
||||
|
|
@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ function* newAssetRequest (action) {
|
|||
}
|
||||
// put action to add request to asset request list
|
||||
const assetKey = `a#${name}#${longId}`;
|
||||
yield put(addRequestToPreviousRequests(requestId, null, assetKey));
|
||||
yield put(addRequestToRequestList(requestId, null, assetKey));
|
||||
// get short Id
|
||||
console.log(`getting asset short id ${name} ${longId}`);
|
||||
let shortId;
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
import { call, put, takeLatest } from 'redux-saga/effects';
|
||||
import * as actions from 'constants/show_action_types';
|
||||
import { addNewChannelToChannelList, addRequestToPreviousRequests, onRequestError, updateChannelClaims } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
import { addNewChannelToChannelList, addRequestToRequestList, onRequestError, updateChannelClaims } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
import { getChannelClaims, getChannelData } from 'api/channelApi';
|
||||
|
||||
function* getNewChannelAndUpdateChannelList (action) {
|
||||
|
|
@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ function* getNewChannelAndUpdateChannelList (action) {
|
|||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
}
|
||||
// store the request in the channel requests list
|
||||
const channelKey = `c#${channelName}#${longId}`;
|
||||
yield put(addRequestToPreviousRequests(requestId, null, channelKey));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
yield put(addRequestToRequestList(requestId, null, channelKey));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
// get channel claims data
|
||||
console.log('getting channel claims data');
|
||||
let claimsData;
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
I think generally the pattern is that an action is
{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }just to keep things consistent.datacan be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that