React router #343

Merged
bones7242 merged 96 commits from react-router into master 2018-02-15 08:02:17 +01:00
19 changed files with 198 additions and 327 deletions
Showing only changes of commit 249b6c6f0f - Show all commits

View file

@ -61,24 +61,11 @@ export function showNewAsset (name, claimId) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
}; };
}; };
export function updateShowAsset (error, id) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
return {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
type: actions.SHOW_ASSET_UPDATE,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
data: { error, id },
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
export function clearShowAsset () {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
return {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
type: actions.SHOW_ASSET_CLEAR,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
// add asset to asset list // add asset to asset list
export function upsertAssetToAssetList (id, error, name, claimId, shortId, claimData) { export function addAssetToAssetList (id, error, name, claimId, shortId, claimData) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
return { return {
type: actions.ASSET_LIST_UPSERT, type: actions.ASSET_LIST_ADD,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
data: { id, error, name, claimId, shortId, claimData }, data: { id, error, name, claimId, shortId, claimData },
}; };
} }
@ -101,33 +88,29 @@ export function addChannelRequest (id, error, name, longId, shortId) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
// show a channel // show a channel
export function showNewChannel (channelData) { export function showNewChannel (name, shortId, longId) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
const id = `c#${channelData.name}#${channelData.longId}`; // move to the action const id = `c#${name}#${longId}`; // move to the action
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
return { return {
type: actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_NEW, type: actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_NEW,
data: { id, channelData }, data: { id, name, shortId, longId },
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
}; };
}; };
export function updateShowChannel (error, id) { // add channels to channel list
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
return {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
type: actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_UPDATE,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
data: { error, id },
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
export function clearShowChannel () { export function addNewChannelToChannelList (id, name, shortId, longId, claimsData) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
return { return {
type: actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_CLEAR, type: actions.CHANNEL_LIST_ADD,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
data: { id, name, shortId, longId, claimsData },
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
}; };
}; };
// update channel data // update channel data
export function updateChannelClaimsAsync (channelListId, name, longId, page) { export function updateChannelClaimsAsync (channelKey, name, longId, page) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
return { return {
type: actions.CHANNEL_LIST_CLAIMS_UPDATE_ASYNC, type: actions.CHANNEL_LIST_CLAIMS_UPDATE_ASYNC,
data: {channelListId, name, longId, page}, data: {channelKey, name, longId, page},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
}; };
}; };
@ -138,15 +121,6 @@ export function updateChannelClaims (channelListId, claimsData) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
}; };
}; };
// add channels to channel list
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
export function addNewChannelToChannelList (id, error, channelData, claimsData) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
return {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
type: actions.CHANNEL_LIST_ADD,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
data: { id, error, channelData, claimsData },
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
// display a file // display a file
export function fileRequested (name, claimId) { export function fileRequested (name, claimId) {

neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This probably shouldn't be called XXX_ASYNC since it isn't async

This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async

View file

@ -3,11 +3,18 @@ import View from './view';
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
import { fileRequested } from 'actions/show'; import { fileRequested } from 'actions/show';
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => { const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
return { let props = {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
error : show.displayAsset.error, error : show.displayAsset.error,
status : show.displayAsset.status, status: show.displayAsset.status,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
asset : show.assetList[show.showAsset.id],
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
}; };
// select asset info
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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 existingRequest = show.assetRequests[show.request.id];
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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 = `a#${existingRequest.name}#${existingRequest.claimId}`;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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 existingAsset = show.assetList[assetKey];
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
if (existingAsset) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
props['asset'] = existingAsset;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
return props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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 mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => { const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {

neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

Why do you do `const that = this`?
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:52:52 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 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
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.

View file

@ -2,9 +2,15 @@ import { connect } from 'react-redux';
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
import View from './view'; import View from './view';
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => { const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
return { let props = {};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
asset: show.assetList[show.showAsset.id], // select asset info
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
const request = show.assetRequests[show.request.id];
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
const assetKey = `a#${request.name}#${request.claimId}`;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
const asset = show.assetList[assetKey];
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
if (asset) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
props['asset'] = asset;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
}; };
return props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
}; };
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View); export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View);

neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:39:44 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This should be a button if it isn't linking anywhere.

This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.

View file

@ -2,9 +2,15 @@ import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import View from './view'; import View from './view';
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => { const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
return { let props = {};
title: show.assetList[show.showAsset.id].claimData.title, // select title
const existingRequest = show.assetRequests[show.request.id];
const assetKey = `a#${existingRequest.name}#${existingRequest.claimId}`;
const existingAsset = show.assetList[assetKey];
if (existingAsset) {
props['title'] = existingAsset.claimData.title;
}; };
return props;
}; };
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View); export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View);

View file

@ -1,10 +1,4 @@
import { connect } from 'react-redux'; import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import View from './view'; import View from './view';
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => { export default connect(null, null)(View);
return {
asset: show.assetList[show.showAsset.id],
};
};
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View);

View file

@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
import React from 'react'; import React from 'react';
import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import NavBar from 'containers/NavBar'; import NavBar from 'containers/NavBar';
import AssetTitle from 'components/AssetTitle'; import AssetTitle from 'components/AssetTitle';
import AssetDisplay from 'components/AssetDisplay'; import AssetDisplay from 'components/AssetDisplay';
@ -7,11 +6,9 @@ import AssetInfo from 'components/AssetInfo';
class ShowAssetDetails extends React.Component { class ShowAssetDetails extends React.Component {
render () { render () {
const { asset } = this.props;
return ( return (
<div> <div>
<NavBar/> <NavBar/>
{asset &&
<div className="row row--tall row--padded"> <div className="row row--tall row--padded">
<div className="column column--10"> <div className="column column--10">
<AssetTitle /> <AssetTitle />
@ -32,8 +29,4 @@ class ShowAssetDetails extends React.Component {
} }
}; };
ShowAssetDetails.propTypes = {
error: PropTypes.string,
};
export default ShowAssetDetails; export default ShowAssetDetails;

View file

@ -2,9 +2,16 @@ import { connect } from 'react-redux';
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
import View from './view'; import View from './view';
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => { const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
return { let props = {};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
asset: show.assetList[show.showAsset.id], // select name and claim id
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
const existingRequest = show.assetRequests[show.request.id];
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
const assetKey = `a#${existingRequest.name}#${existingRequest.claimId}`;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
const existingAsset = show.assetList[assetKey];
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
if (existingAsset) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
props['name'] = existingAsset.name;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
props['claimId'] = existingAsset.claimId;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
}; };
return props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
}; };
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View); export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View);

neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:34:53 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 `this.props.claimData` `const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props` Then you can just use `name={name}`

View file

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ import AssetDisplay from 'components/AssetDisplay';
class ShowLite extends React.Component { class ShowLite extends React.Component {
render () { render () {
const { asset: { name, claimId } } = this.props; const { name, claimId } = this.props;
return ( return (
<div className="row row--tall flex-container--column flex-container--center-center"> <div className="row row--tall flex-container--column flex-container--center-center">
{ (name && claimId) && { (name && claimId) &&

View file

@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ export const ASSET_REQUEST_NEW = 'ASSET_REQUEST_NEW';
export const ASSET_REQUEST_ADD = 'ASSET_REQUEST_ADD'; export const ASSET_REQUEST_ADD = 'ASSET_REQUEST_ADD';
export const SHOW_ASSET_NEW = 'SHOW_ASSET_NEW'; export const SHOW_ASSET_NEW = 'SHOW_ASSET_NEW';
export const SHOW_ASSET_UPDATE = 'SHOW_ASSET_UPDATE'; export const ASSET_LIST_ADD = `ASSET_LIST_ADD`;
export const SHOW_ASSET_CLEAR = 'SHOW_ASSET_CLEAR';
export const ASSET_LIST_UPSERT = `ASSET_LIST_UPSERT`;
// channel request actions // channel request actions
export const CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW = 'CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW'; export const CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW = 'CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW';

View file

@ -3,16 +3,23 @@ import { updateChannelClaimsAsync } from 'actions/show';
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
import View from './view'; import View from './view';
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => { const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
return { let props = {};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
showChannelId: show.showChannel.id, // select channel key
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
channel : show.channelList[show.showChannel.id], const request = show.channelRequests[show.request.id];
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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 = `c#${request.name}#${request.longId}`;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
props['channelKey'] = channelKey;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
// select channel claims
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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 channel = show.channelList[channelKey];
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
if (channel) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
props['channel'] = channel;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
}; };
return props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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 mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => { const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
return { return {
onChannelPageUpdate: (showChannelId, name, longId, page) => { onChannelPageUpdate: (channelKey, name, longId, page) => {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
dispatch(updateChannelClaimsAsync(showChannelId, name, longId, page)); dispatch(updateChannelClaimsAsync(channelKey, name, longId, page));
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
}, },
}; };
}; };

neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

Will these nested values always exist?
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 07:58:43 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

View file

@ -18,21 +18,12 @@ class ChannelClaimsDisplay extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
this.showNewPage(nextPage); this.showNewPage(nextPage);
} }
showNewPage (page) { showNewPage (page) {
const { showChannelId, channel: { channelData: { name, longId } } } = this.props; const { channelKey, channel: { name, longId } } = this.props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
console.log(`update claims data on channel ${showChannelId} with new page ${page}`); this.props.onChannelPageUpdate(channelKey, name, longId, page);
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
this.props.onChannelPageUpdate(showChannelId, name, longId, page);
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
} }
render () { render () {
const { channel: { error, claimsData: { claims, currentPage, totalPages } } } = this.props; const { channel: { claimsData: { claims, currentPage, totalPages } } } = this.props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
return ( return (
<div>
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
{error ? (
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
<div className="row">
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
<div className="column column--10">
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
<p>{error}</p>
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
</div>
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
</div>
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
) : (
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
<div className="row row--tall"> <div className="row row--tall">
{claims && {claims &&
<div> <div>
@ -54,8 +45,6 @@ class ChannelClaimsDisplay extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
</div> </div>
} }
</div> </div>
)}
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
</div>
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
); );
} }
}; };

neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch updateClaimsData action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)

View file

@ -1,20 +1,27 @@
import { connect } from 'react-redux'; import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import View from './view'; import View from './view';
import { newAssetRequest, updateRequestError, showNewAsset, updateShowAsset, clearShowAsset } from 'actions/show'; import { newAssetRequest, showNewAsset } from 'actions/show';
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => { const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
return { let props = {};
// request props['requestType'] = show.request.type;
requestId : show.request.id, props['requestId'] = show.request.id;
requestName : show.request.data.name, props['requestName'] = show.request.data.name;
requestModifier : show.request.data.modifier, props['requestModifier'] = show.request.data.modifier;
requestExtension: show.request.data.extension, props['requestExtension'] = show.request.data.extension;
assetRequests : show.assetRequests, // select request
assetList : show.assetList, const existingRequest = show.assetRequests[show.request.id];
// show asset if (existingRequest) {
error : show.showAsset.error, props['existingRequest'] = existingRequest;
id : show.showAsset.id, // select asset info
const assetKey = `a#${existingRequest.name}#${existingRequest.claimId}`; // note: just store this in the request
const existingAsset = show.assetList[assetKey];
if (existingAsset) {
console.log('existing asset found', existingAsset);
props['asset'] = existingAsset;
}; };
};
return props;
}; };
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => { const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
@ -23,19 +30,10 @@ const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
onNewRequest: (id, name, modifier) => { onNewRequest: (id, name, modifier) => {
dispatch(newAssetRequest(id, name, modifier)); dispatch(newAssetRequest(id, name, modifier));
}, },
onRequestError: (error) => {
dispatch(updateRequestError(error, null, null));
},
// show asset // show asset
onShowNewAsset: (name, claimId) => { onShowNewAsset: (name, claimId) => {
dispatch(showNewAsset(name, claimId)); dispatch(showNewAsset(name, claimId));
}, },
onShowExistingAsset: (assetId) => {
dispatch(updateShowAsset(null, assetId));
},
onLeaveShowAsset: () => {
dispatch(clearShowAsset()); // clear any errors
},
}; };
}; };

View file

@ -9,83 +9,40 @@ function requestIsAnAssetRequest ({ requestType }) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
return requestType === ASSET; return requestType === ASSET;
} }
function requestIsNewRequest (nextProps, props) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
return (nextProps.requestId !== props.requestId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
class ShowAsset extends React.Component { class ShowAsset extends React.Component {
componentDidMount () { componentDidMount () {
const { requestId, requestName, requestModifier, assetRequests } = this.props; const { asset, existingRequest, requestId, requestName, requestModifier } = this.props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
const existingRequest = assetRequests[requestId]; if (!existingRequest) { // case: the asset request does not exist
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
if (existingRequest) { // case: the assetRequest exists return this.props.onNewRequest(requestId, requestName, requestModifier);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
this.onRepeatRequest(existingRequest); };
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
} else { // case: the asset request does not exist if (!asset) { // case: the asset request does not exist
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
this.onNewRequest(requestId, requestName, requestModifier); const { name, claimId } = existingRequest;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
} return this.props.onShowNewAsset(name, claimId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
} }
componentWillReceiveProps (nextProps) { componentWillReceiveProps (nextProps) {
// case where componentDidMount triggered new props if (requestIsAnAssetRequest(nextProps)) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
if (requestIsAnAssetRequest(nextProps) && requestIsNewRequest(nextProps, this.props)) { const { asset, existingRequest, requestId, requestName, requestModifier } = nextProps;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
const { requestId, requestName, requestModifier, assetRequests } = nextProps; if (!existingRequest) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
const existingRequest = assetRequests[requestId]; return this.props.onNewRequest(requestId, requestName, requestModifier);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
if (existingRequest) { // case: the assetRequest exists };
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
this.onRepeatRequest(existingRequest); if (!asset) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
} else { // case: the asset request does not exist const { name, claimId } = existingRequest;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
this.onNewRequest(requestId, requestName, requestModifier); return this.props.onShowNewAsset(name, claimId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
} }
} else {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
console.log('ShowAsset receiving new props -> request.id did not update', nextProps);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
onNewRequest (id, requestName, requestModifier) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
console.log('new request');
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
this.props.onNewRequest(id, requestName, requestModifier);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
onRepeatRequest ({ error, name, claimId }) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
console.log('repeat request');
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
// if error, return and update state with error
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
if (error) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
return this.props.onRequestError(error);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
// update the showAsset data in the store
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
const { assetList } = this.props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
const assetId = `a#${name}#${claimId}`;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
const existingAssetRecord = assetList[assetId];
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
if (existingAssetRecord) { // case: the asset data already exists
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
this.showExistingAsset(assetId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
} else { // case: the asset data does not exist yet
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
this.showNewAsset(name, claimId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
showNewAsset (name, claimId) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
this.props.onShowNewAsset(name, claimId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
showExistingAsset (assetId) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
this.props.onShowExistingAsset(assetId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
componentWillUnmount () {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
this.props.onLeaveShowAsset();
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
} }
render () { render () {
const { error, id, requestExtension } = this.props; const {asset, requestExtension} = this.props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
if (error) { if (asset) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
return (
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
<ErrorPage error={error}/>
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
if (id) { // direct requests are passing because name is present so it just goes
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
if (requestExtension) { if (requestExtension) {
return ( return <ShowAssetLite/>;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
<ShowAssetLite />
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
} else {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
return (
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
<ShowAssetDetails />
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
} }
}; return <ShowAssetDetails/>;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
return ( return (
<div> </div> <ErrorPage error={'loading asset data...'}/>
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
); );
} }
}; };

neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion previousRequest shouldn't even exist. In the mapStateToProps you should be able to map the asset from your state into the component. If !asset then make the request.

I also think onShowNewAsset and onNewRequest can be combined. More specifically I don't think onShowNewAsset is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".

I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request. I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:17:20 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with onShowNewAsset and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into onNewRequest. That allowed me to remove previousRequest from the props I am passing to the <ShowAsset /> component. However, I am still checking for a previousRequest in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full claimId from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.

View file

@ -1,41 +1,38 @@
import { connect } from 'react-redux'; import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import {newChannelRequest, updateRequestError, showNewChannel, updateShowChannel, clearShowChannel} from 'actions/show'; import { newChannelRequest, showNewChannel } from 'actions/show';
import View from './view'; import View from './view';
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => { const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
return { let props = {};
// request props['requestId'] = show.request.id;
requestId : show.request.id, props['requestType'] = show.request.type;
requestType : show.request.type, props['requestChannelName'] = show.request.data.name;
requestChannelName: show.request.data.name, props['requestChannelId'] = show.request.data.id;
requestChannelId : show.request.data.id, // select request
requestList : show.channelRequests, const existingRequest = show.channelRequests[show.request.id];
channelList : show.channelList, if (existingRequest) {
// show channel props['existingRequest'] = existingRequest;
error : show.showChannel.error, console.log('existing channel request found', existingRequest);
id : show.showChannel.id, // select channel info
channel : show.channelList[show.showChannel.id], const channelKey = `c#${existingRequest.name}#${existingRequest.longId}`;
const channel = show.channelList[channelKey];
if (channel) {
props['channel'] = channel;
}; };
}
return props;
}; };
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => { const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
return { return {
// request // request
onNewChannelRequest (id, name, channelId) { onNewChannelRequest (requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId) {
dispatch(newChannelRequest(id, name, channelId)); dispatch(newChannelRequest(requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId));
},
onRequestError: (error) => {
dispatch(updateRequestError(error, null, null));
}, },
// show channel // show channel
onShowNewChannel: (channelData) => { onShowNewChannel: (name, shortId, longId) => {
dispatch(showNewChannel(channelData)); dispatch(showNewChannel(name, shortId, longId));
},
onShowExistingChannel: (id) => {
dispatch(updateShowChannel(null, id));
},
onShowChannelClear: () => {
dispatch(clearShowChannel());
}, },
}; };
}; };

View file

@ -9,69 +9,33 @@ function requestIsAChannelRequest ({ requestType }) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
return requestType === CHANNEL; return requestType === CHANNEL;
} }
function requestIsNewRequest (nextProps, props) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
return (nextProps.requestId !== props.requestId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
class ShowChannel extends React.Component { class ShowChannel extends React.Component {
componentDidMount () { componentDidMount () {
const {requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId, requestList, channelList} = this.props; const { existingRequest, channel, requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId } = this.props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
const existingRequest = requestList[requestId]; if (!existingRequest) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
if (existingRequest) { return this.props.onNewChannelRequest(requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.onRepeatChannelRequest(existingRequest, channelList); }
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
} else { if (!channel) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.onNewChannelRequest(requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId); const { name, shortId, longId } = existingRequest;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
return this.props.onShowNewChannel(name, shortId, longId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
} }
} }
componentWillReceiveProps (nextProps) { componentWillReceiveProps (nextProps) {
if (requestIsAChannelRequest(nextProps) && requestIsNewRequest(nextProps, this.props)) { if (requestIsAChannelRequest(nextProps)) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
const {requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId, requestList, channelList} = nextProps; const { existingRequest, channel, requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId } = nextProps;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
const existingRequest = requestList[requestId]; if (!existingRequest) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
if (existingRequest) { return this.props.onNewChannelRequest(requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.onRepeatChannelRequest(existingRequest, channelList);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
} else {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.onNewChannelRequest(requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
} }
} else { if (!channel) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
console.log('ShowChannel receiving new props -> request.id did not update', nextProps); const { name, shortId, longId } = existingRequest;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
}; return this.props.onShowNewChannel(name, shortId, longId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
onNewChannelRequest (requestId, requestName, requestChannelId) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
console.log('new request');
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.props.onNewChannelRequest(requestId, requestName, requestChannelId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
onRepeatChannelRequest ({ error, channelData }, channelList) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
// if error, return and update state with error
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
if (error) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
return this.props.onRequestError(error);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
// check if the channel data is present or not
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
const channelRecordId = `c#${channelData.name}#${channelData.longId}`;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
const existingChannel = channelList[channelRecordId];
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
if (existingChannel) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.showExistingChannel(channelRecordId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
} else {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.showNewChannel(channelData);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
} }
} }
showNewChannel (channelData) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.props.onShowNewChannel(channelData);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
showExistingChannel (channelRecordId) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.props.onShowExistingChannel(channelRecordId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
componentWillUnmount () {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.props.onShowChannelClear();
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
} }
render () { render () {
const { error, channel } = this.props; const { channel } = this.props;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
if (error) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
return (
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
<ErrorPage error={error}/>
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
if (channel) { if (channel) {
const { channelData: { name, longId, shortId } } = channel; const { name, longId, shortId } = channel;
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
return ( return (
<div> <div>
<NavBar/> <NavBar/>
@ -82,7 +46,7 @@ class ShowChannel extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
<p className={'fine-print'}>short channel id: {shortId ? shortId : 'loading...'}</p> <p className={'fine-print'}>short channel id: {shortId ? shortId : 'loading...'}</p>
</div> </div>
<div className="column column--10"> <div className="column column--10">
{(name && longId) && <ChannelClaimsDisplay />} <ChannelClaimsDisplay />
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
</div> </div>
</div> </div>
</div> </div>

neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

View file

@ -9,14 +9,6 @@ const initialState = {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
data : null, data : null,
requestId: null, requestId: null,
}, },
showChannel: {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
error: null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
id : null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
showAsset: {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
error: null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
id : null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
displayAsset: { displayAsset: {
error : null, error : null,
status: LOCAL_CHECK, status: LOCAL_CHECK,
@ -24,7 +16,7 @@ const initialState = {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
channelRequests: {}, channelRequests: {},
channelList : {}, channelList : {},
assetRequests : {}, assetRequests : {},
assetList : {}, // same schema as showAsset assetList : {},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
}; };
export default function (state = initialState, action) { export default function (state = initialState, action) {
@ -72,23 +64,8 @@ export default function (state = initialState, action) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
}, },
}), }),
}); });
// show an asset
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
case actions.SHOW_ASSET_UPDATE:
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
return Object.assign({}, state, {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
showAsset: Object.assign({}, state.showAsset, {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
error: action.data.error,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
id : action.data.id,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
}),
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
});
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
case actions.SHOW_ASSET_CLEAR:
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
return Object.assign({}, state, {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
showAsset: Object.assign({}, state.showAsset, {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
error: null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
id : null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
}),
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
});
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
// add asset to asset list // add asset to asset list
case actions.ASSET_LIST_UPSERT: case actions.ASSET_LIST_ADD:
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
return Object.assign({}, state, { return Object.assign({}, state, {
assetList: Object.assign({}, state.assetList, { assetList: Object.assign({}, state.assetList, {
[action.data.id]: { [action.data.id]: {
@ -106,12 +83,10 @@ export default function (state = initialState, action) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
channelRequests: Object.assign({}, state.channelRequests, { channelRequests: Object.assign({}, state.channelRequests, {
[action.data.id]: { [action.data.id]: {
error : action.data.error, error : action.data.error,
channelData: {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
name : action.data.name, name : action.data.name,
longId : action.data.longId, longId : action.data.longId,
shortId: action.data.shortId, shortId: action.data.shortId,
}, },
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
}), }),
}); });
// show a channel // show a channel
@ -134,9 +109,10 @@ export default function (state = initialState, action) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
return Object.assign({}, state, { return Object.assign({}, state, {
channelList: Object.assign({}, state.channelList, { channelList: Object.assign({}, state.channelList, {
[action.data.id]: { [action.data.id]: {
error : action.data.error, name : action.data.name,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
channelData: action.data.channelData, longId : action.data.longId,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
claimsData : action.data.claimsData, shortId : action.data.shortId,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
claimsData: action.data.claimsData,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
}, },
}), }),
}); });

neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
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

View file

@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ function* newChannelRequest (action) {
({success, message, data} = yield call(getChannelData, name, channelId)); ({success, message, data} = yield call(getChannelData, name, channelId));
} catch (error) { } catch (error) {
// return yield put(addChannelRequest(id, error.message, null, null, null)); // return yield put(addChannelRequest(id, error.message, null, null, null));
return yield put(updateRequestError(message)); return yield put(updateRequestError(error.message));
} }
if (!success) { if (!success) {
// return yield put(addChannelRequest(id, message, null, null, null)); // return yield put(addChannelRequest(id, message, null, null, null));
@ -34,8 +34,7 @@ function* newChannelRequest (action) {
} }
const { longChannelClaimId: longId, shortChannelClaimId: shortId } = data; const { longChannelClaimId: longId, shortChannelClaimId: shortId } = data;
yield put(addChannelRequest(id, null, name, longId, shortId)); yield put(addChannelRequest(id, null, name, longId, shortId));
const channelData = {name, longId, shortId}; yield put(showNewChannel(name, shortId, longId));
yield put(showNewChannel(channelData));
} }
export function* watchNewAssetRequest () { export function* watchNewAssetRequest () {

View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
import { call, put, takeLatest } from 'redux-saga/effects'; import { call, put, takeLatest } from 'redux-saga/effects';
import * as actions from 'constants/show_action_types'; import * as actions from 'constants/show_action_types';
import { updateShowAsset, upsertAssetToAssetList } from 'actions/show'; import { updateRequestError, addAssetToAssetList } from 'actions/show';
import { getShortId, getClaimData } from 'api/assetApi'; import { getShortId, getClaimData } from 'api/assetApi';
function* getAssetDataAndShowAsset (action) { function* getAssetDataAndShowAsset (action) {
@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ function* getAssetDataAndShowAsset (action) {
try { try {
({success, message, data: shortId} = yield call(getShortId, name, claimId)); ({success, message, data: shortId} = yield call(getShortId, name, claimId));
} catch (error) { } catch (error) {
return yield put(updateShowAsset(error.message, null)); return yield put(updateRequestError(error.message));
} }
if (!success) { if (!success) {
return yield put(updateShowAsset(message, null)); return yield put(updateRequestError(message));
} }
// if no error, get claim data // if no error, get claim data
success = null; success = null;
@ -21,13 +21,13 @@ function* getAssetDataAndShowAsset (action) {
try { try {
({success, message, data: claimData} = yield call(getClaimData, name, claimId)); ({success, message, data: claimData} = yield call(getClaimData, name, claimId));
} catch (error) { } catch (error) {
return yield put(updateShowAsset(error.message, null)); return yield put(updateRequestError(error.message));
} }
if (!success) { if (!success) {
return yield put(updateShowAsset(message, null)); return yield put(updateRequestError(message));
} }
yield put(upsertAssetToAssetList(id, null, name, claimId, shortId, claimData)); yield put(addAssetToAssetList(id, null, name, claimId, shortId, claimData));
yield put(updateShowAsset(null, id)); yield put(updateRequestError(null));
} }
export function* watchShowNewAsset () { export function* watchShowNewAsset () {

View file

@ -1,22 +1,22 @@
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 { call, put, takeLatest } from 'redux-saga/effects';
import * as actions from 'constants/show_action_types'; import * as actions from 'constants/show_action_types';
import { updateShowChannel, addNewChannelToChannelList, updateChannelClaims } from 'actions/show'; import { updateRequestError, addNewChannelToChannelList, updateChannelClaims } from 'actions/show';
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 } from 'api/channelApi'; import { getChannelClaims } from 'api/channelApi';
function* getChannelClaimsAndShowChannel (action) { function* getChannelClaimsAndShowChannel (action) {
const { id, channelData: {name, shortId, longId} } = action.data; const { id, name, shortId, longId } = action.data;
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
console.log('getchannelclaimsandshowchannel', id, name, shortId, longId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
let success, message, claimsData; let success, message, claimsData;
try { try {
({ success, message, data: claimsData } = yield call(getChannelClaims, name, longId, 1)); ({ success, message, data: claimsData } = yield call(getChannelClaims, name, longId, 1));
} catch (error) { } catch (error) {
return yield put(updateShowChannel(error.message, null)); return yield put(updateRequestError(error.message));
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
} }
if (!success) { if (!success) {
return yield put(updateShowChannel(message, null)); return yield put(updateRequestError(message));
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
} }
const channelData = {name, shortId, longId}; yield put(addNewChannelToChannelList(id, name, shortId, longId, claimsData));
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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(addNewChannelToChannelList(id, null, channelData, claimsData)); yield put(updateRequestError(null));
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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(updateShowChannel(null, id));
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
} }
export function* watchShowNewChannel () { export function* watchShowNewChannel () {
@ -24,17 +24,17 @@ export function* watchShowNewChannel () {
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
}; };
function* getNewClaimsAndUpdateClaimsList (action) { function* getNewClaimsAndUpdateClaimsList (action) {
const { channelListId, name, longId, page } = action.data; const { channelKey, name, longId, page } = action.data;
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
let success, message, claimsData; let success, message, claimsData;
try { try {
({ success, message, data: claimsData } = yield call(getChannelClaims, name, longId, page)); ({ success, message, data: claimsData } = yield call(getChannelClaims, name, longId, page));
} catch (error) { } catch (error) {
return yield put(updateShowChannel(error.message, null)); return yield put(updateRequestError(error.message));
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
} }
if (!success) { if (!success) {
return yield put(updateShowChannel(message, null)); return yield put(updateRequestError(message));
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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(updateChannelClaims(channelListId, claimsData)); yield put(updateChannelClaims(channelKey, claimsData));
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
} }
export function* watchShowNewChannelClaimsRequest () { export function* watchShowNewChannelClaimsRequest () {

neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:53:34 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 22:55:57 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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