React router #343
|
|
@ -61,24 +61,11 @@ export function showNewAsset (name, claimId) {
|
|||
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export function updateShowAsset (error, id) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
type: actions.SHOW_ASSET_UPDATE,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { error, id },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function clearShowAsset () {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
type: actions.SHOW_ASSET_CLEAR,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
// add asset to asset list
|
||||
|
||||
export function upsertAssetToAssetList (id, error, name, claimId, shortId, claimData) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function addAssetToAssetList (id, error, name, claimId, shortId, claimData) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.ASSET_LIST_UPSERT,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
type: actions.ASSET_LIST_ADD,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { id, error, name, claimId, shortId, claimData },
|
||||
};
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -101,33 +88,29 @@ export function addChannelRequest (id, error, name, longId, shortId) {
|
|||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
// show a channel
|
||||
|
||||
export function showNewChannel (channelData) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
const id = `c#${channelData.name}#${channelData.longId}`; // move to the action
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function showNewChannel (name, shortId, longId) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
const id = `c#${name}#${longId}`; // move to the action
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_NEW,
|
||||
data: { id, channelData },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { id, name, shortId, longId },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export function updateShowChannel (error, id) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
type: actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_UPDATE,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { error, id },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
// add channels to channel list
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
export function clearShowChannel () {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function addNewChannelToChannelList (id, name, shortId, longId, claimsData) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_CLEAR,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
type: actions.CHANNEL_LIST_ADD,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { id, name, shortId, longId, claimsData },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
// update channel data
|
||||
|
||||
export function updateChannelClaimsAsync (channelListId, name, longId, page) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function updateChannelClaimsAsync (channelKey, name, longId, page) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.CHANNEL_LIST_CLAIMS_UPDATE_ASYNC,
|
||||
data: {channelListId, name, longId, page},
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: {channelKey, name, longId, page},
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -138,15 +121,6 @@ export function updateChannelClaims (channelListId, claimsData) {
|
|||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
// add channels to channel list
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function addNewChannelToChannelList (id, error, channelData, claimsData) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
type: actions.CHANNEL_LIST_ADD,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { id, error, channelData, claimsData },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
// display a file
|
||||
|
||||
export function fileRequested (name, claimId) {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
|
@ -3,11 +3,18 @@ import View from './view';
|
|||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
import { fileRequested } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
let props = {
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
error : show.displayAsset.error,
|
||||
status : show.displayAsset.status,
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
asset : show.assetList[show.showAsset.id],
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
status: show.displayAsset.status,
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
};
|
||||
// select asset info
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
const existingRequest = show.assetRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
const assetKey = `a#${existingRequest.name}#${existingRequest.claimId}`;
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
const existingAsset = show.assetList[assetKey];
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
if (existingAsset) {
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
props['asset'] = existingAsset;
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
return props;
|
||||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
Why do you do Why do you do `const that = this`?
I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
I had a misunderstanding of how the I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
|
||||
|
|
@ -2,9 +2,15 @@ import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
|||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
asset: show.assetList[show.showAsset.id],
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
let props = {};
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
// select asset info
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
const request = show.assetRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
const assetKey = `a#${request.name}#${request.claimId}`;
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
const asset = show.assetList[assetKey];
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
if (asset) {
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
props['asset'] = asset;
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
};
|
||||
return props;
|
||||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View);
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
This should be a This should be a `button` if it isn't linking anywhere.
|
||||
|
|
@ -2,9 +2,15 @@ import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
|||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
title: show.assetList[show.showAsset.id].claimData.title,
|
||||
let props = {};
|
||||
// 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);
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,10 +1,4 @@
|
|||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
asset: show.assetList[show.showAsset.id],
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View);
|
||||
export default connect(null, null)(View);
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
|
|||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
|
||||
import NavBar from 'containers/NavBar';
|
||||
import AssetTitle from 'components/AssetTitle';
|
||||
import AssetDisplay from 'components/AssetDisplay';
|
||||
|
|
@ -7,11 +6,9 @@ import AssetInfo from 'components/AssetInfo';
|
|||
|
||||
class ShowAssetDetails extends React.Component {
|
||||
render () {
|
||||
const { asset } = this.props;
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<div>
|
||||
<NavBar/>
|
||||
{asset &&
|
||||
<div className="row row--tall row--padded">
|
||||
<div className="column column--10">
|
||||
<AssetTitle />
|
||||
|
|
@ -32,8 +29,4 @@ class ShowAssetDetails extends React.Component {
|
|||
}
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
ShowAssetDetails.propTypes = {
|
||||
error: PropTypes.string,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default ShowAssetDetails;
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -2,9 +2,16 @@ import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
|||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
asset: show.assetList[show.showAsset.id],
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
let props = {};
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
// select name and claim id
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const existingRequest = show.assetRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const assetKey = `a#${existingRequest.name}#${existingRequest.claimId}`;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const existingAsset = show.assetList[assetKey];
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
if (existingAsset) {
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
props['name'] = existingAsset.name;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
props['claimId'] = existingAsset.claimId;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
};
|
||||
return props;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View);
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
|
|
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ import AssetDisplay from 'components/AssetDisplay';
|
|||
|
||||
class ShowLite extends React.Component {
|
||||
render () {
|
||||
const { asset: { name, claimId } } = this.props;
|
||||
const { name, claimId } = this.props;
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<div className="row row--tall flex-container--column flex-container--center-center">
|
||||
{ (name && claimId) &&
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ export const ASSET_REQUEST_NEW = 'ASSET_REQUEST_NEW';
|
|||
export const ASSET_REQUEST_ADD = 'ASSET_REQUEST_ADD';
|
||||
|
||||
export const SHOW_ASSET_NEW = 'SHOW_ASSET_NEW';
|
||||
export const SHOW_ASSET_UPDATE = 'SHOW_ASSET_UPDATE';
|
||||
export const SHOW_ASSET_CLEAR = 'SHOW_ASSET_CLEAR';
|
||||
|
||||
export const ASSET_LIST_UPSERT = `ASSET_LIST_UPSERT`;
|
||||
export const ASSET_LIST_ADD = `ASSET_LIST_ADD`;
|
||||
|
||||
// channel request actions
|
||||
export const CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW = 'CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW';
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -3,16 +3,23 @@ import { updateChannelClaimsAsync } from 'actions/show';
|
|||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
showChannelId: show.showChannel.id,
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
channel : show.channelList[show.showChannel.id],
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
let props = {};
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
// select channel key
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
const request = show.channelRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
const channelKey = `c#${request.name}#${request.longId}`;
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
props['channelKey'] = channelKey;
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
// select channel claims
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
const channel = show.channelList[channelKey];
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
if (channel) {
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
props['channel'] = channel;
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
};
|
||||
return props;
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
onChannelPageUpdate: (showChannelId, name, longId, page) => {
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
dispatch(updateChannelClaimsAsync(showChannelId, name, longId, page));
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
onChannelPageUpdate: (channelKey, name, longId, page) => {
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
dispatch(updateChannelClaimsAsync(channelKey, name, longId, page));
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
},
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
|
|
@ -18,21 +18,12 @@ class ChannelClaimsDisplay extends React.Component {
|
|||
|
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 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 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);
|
||||
}
|
||||
showNewPage (page) {
|
||||
const { showChannelId, channel: { channelData: { name, longId } } } = this.props;
|
||||
|
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 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 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 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);
|
||||
|
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 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)
|
||||
const { channelKey, channel: { name, longId } } = this.props;
|
||||
|
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 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(channelKey, name, longId, page);
|
||||
|
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 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 () {
|
||||
const { channel: { error, claimsData: { claims, currentPage, totalPages } } } = this.props;
|
||||
|
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 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)
|
||||
const { channel: { claimsData: { claims, currentPage, totalPages } } } = this.props;
|
||||
|
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 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 (
|
||||
<div>
|
||||
|
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 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 ? (
|
||||
|
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 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">
|
||||
|
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 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">
|
||||
|
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 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>
|
||||
|
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 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>
|
||||
|
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 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>
|
||||
|
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 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 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">
|
||||
{claims &&
|
||||
<div>
|
||||
|
|
@ -54,8 +45,6 @@ class ChannelClaimsDisplay extends React.Component {
|
|||
|
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 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 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>
|
||||
)}
|
||||
|
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 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>
|
||||
|
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 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 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 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)
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,20 +1,27 @@
|
|||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
import { newAssetRequest, updateRequestError, showNewAsset, updateShowAsset, clearShowAsset } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
import { newAssetRequest, showNewAsset } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
// request
|
||||
requestId : show.request.id,
|
||||
requestName : show.request.data.name,
|
||||
requestModifier : show.request.data.modifier,
|
||||
requestExtension: show.request.data.extension,
|
||||
assetRequests : show.assetRequests,
|
||||
assetList : show.assetList,
|
||||
// show asset
|
||||
error : show.showAsset.error,
|
||||
id : show.showAsset.id,
|
||||
let props = {};
|
||||
props['requestType'] = show.request.type;
|
||||
props['requestId'] = show.request.id;
|
||||
props['requestName'] = show.request.data.name;
|
||||
props['requestModifier'] = show.request.data.modifier;
|
||||
props['requestExtension'] = show.request.data.extension;
|
||||
// select request
|
||||
const existingRequest = show.assetRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
if (existingRequest) {
|
||||
props['existingRequest'] = existingRequest;
|
||||
// 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 => {
|
||||
|
|
@ -23,19 +30,10 @@ const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
|
|||
onNewRequest: (id, name, modifier) => {
|
||||
dispatch(newAssetRequest(id, name, modifier));
|
||||
},
|
||||
onRequestError: (error) => {
|
||||
dispatch(updateRequestError(error, null, null));
|
||||
},
|
||||
// show asset
|
||||
onShowNewAsset: (name, claimId) => {
|
||||
dispatch(showNewAsset(name, claimId));
|
||||
},
|
||||
onShowExistingAsset: (assetId) => {
|
||||
dispatch(updateShowAsset(null, assetId));
|
||||
},
|
||||
onLeaveShowAsset: () => {
|
||||
dispatch(clearShowAsset()); // clear any errors
|
||||
},
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -9,83 +9,40 @@ function requestIsAnAssetRequest ({ requestType }) {
|
|||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function requestIsNewRequest (nextProps, props) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 {
|
||||
componentDidMount () {
|
||||
const { requestId, requestName, requestModifier, assetRequests } = this.props;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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];
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 { asset, existingRequest, requestId, requestName, requestModifier } = this.props;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 asset request does not exist
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.onNewRequest(requestId, requestName, requestModifier);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 (!asset) { // case: the asset request does not exist
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 { name, claimId } = existingRequest;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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) {
|
||||
// case where componentDidMount triggered new props
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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)) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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];
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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)) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 { asset, existingRequest, requestId, requestName, requestModifier } = nextProps;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.onNewRequest(requestId, requestName, requestModifier);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 (!asset) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 { name, claimId } = existingRequest;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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');
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 }) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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');
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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}`;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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];
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 () {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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();
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 () {
|
||||
const { error, id, requestExtension } = this.props;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 (
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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}/>
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 {asset, requestExtension} = this.props;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 (asset) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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) {
|
||||
return (
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 />
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 (
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 />
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 <ShowAssetLite/>;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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/>;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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 (
|
||||
<div> </div>
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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={'loading asset data...'}/>
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think 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".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with 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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,41 +1,38 @@
|
|||
|
||||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
import {newChannelRequest, updateRequestError, showNewChannel, updateShowChannel, clearShowChannel} from 'actions/show';
|
||||
import { newChannelRequest, showNewChannel } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
// request
|
||||
requestId : show.request.id,
|
||||
requestType : show.request.type,
|
||||
requestChannelName: show.request.data.name,
|
||||
requestChannelId : show.request.data.id,
|
||||
requestList : show.channelRequests,
|
||||
channelList : show.channelList,
|
||||
// show channel
|
||||
error : show.showChannel.error,
|
||||
id : show.showChannel.id,
|
||||
channel : show.channelList[show.showChannel.id],
|
||||
let props = {};
|
||||
props['requestId'] = show.request.id;
|
||||
props['requestType'] = show.request.type;
|
||||
props['requestChannelName'] = show.request.data.name;
|
||||
props['requestChannelId'] = show.request.data.id;
|
||||
// select request
|
||||
const existingRequest = show.channelRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
if (existingRequest) {
|
||||
props['existingRequest'] = existingRequest;
|
||||
console.log('existing channel request found', existingRequest);
|
||||
// select channel info
|
||||
const channelKey = `c#${existingRequest.name}#${existingRequest.longId}`;
|
||||
const channel = show.channelList[channelKey];
|
||||
if (channel) {
|
||||
props['channel'] = channel;
|
||||
};
|
||||
}
|
||||
return props;
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
// request
|
||||
onNewChannelRequest (id, name, channelId) {
|
||||
dispatch(newChannelRequest(id, name, channelId));
|
||||
},
|
||||
onRequestError: (error) => {
|
||||
dispatch(updateRequestError(error, null, null));
|
||||
onNewChannelRequest (requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId) {
|
||||
dispatch(newChannelRequest(requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId));
|
||||
},
|
||||
// show channel
|
||||
onShowNewChannel: (channelData) => {
|
||||
dispatch(showNewChannel(channelData));
|
||||
},
|
||||
onShowExistingChannel: (id) => {
|
||||
dispatch(updateShowChannel(null, id));
|
||||
},
|
||||
onShowChannelClear: () => {
|
||||
dispatch(clearShowChannel());
|
||||
onShowNewChannel: (name, shortId, longId) => {
|
||||
dispatch(showNewChannel(name, shortId, longId));
|
||||
},
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -9,69 +9,33 @@ function requestIsAChannelRequest ({ requestType }) {
|
|||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function requestIsNewRequest (nextProps, props) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 {
|
||||
componentDidMount () {
|
||||
const {requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId, requestList, channelList} = this.props;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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];
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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, channel, requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId } = this.props;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.onNewChannelRequest(requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 { name, shortId, longId } = existingRequest;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
if (requestIsAChannelRequest(nextProps) && requestIsNewRequest(nextProps, this.props)) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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];
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 (requestIsAChannelRequest(nextProps)) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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, channel, requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId } = nextProps;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.onNewChannelRequest(requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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');
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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}`;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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];
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 { name, shortId, longId } = existingRequest;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 () {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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();
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 () {
|
||||
const { error, channel } = this.props;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 (
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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}/>
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 { channel } = this.props;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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) {
|
||||
const { channelData: { name, longId, shortId } } = channel;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 { name, longId, shortId } = channel;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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 (
|
||||
<div>
|
||||
<NavBar/>
|
||||
|
|
@ -82,7 +46,7 @@ class ShowChannel extends React.Component {
|
|||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div className="column column--10">
|
||||
{(name && longId) && <ChannelClaimsDisplay />}
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
<ChannelClaimsDisplay />
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -9,14 +9,6 @@ const initialState = {
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
data : null,
|
||||
requestId: null,
|
||||
},
|
||||
showChannel: {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
error: null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
id : null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
showAsset: {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
error: null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
id : null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
displayAsset: {
|
||||
error : null,
|
||||
status: LOCAL_CHECK,
|
||||
|
|
@ -24,7 +16,7 @@ const initialState = {
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
channelRequests: {},
|
||||
channelList : {},
|
||||
assetRequests : {},
|
||||
assetList : {}, // same schema as showAsset
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
assetList : {},
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default function (state = initialState, action) {
|
||||
|
|
@ -72,23 +64,8 @@ export default function (state = initialState, action) {
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
}),
|
||||
});
|
||||
// show an asset
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
case actions.SHOW_ASSET_UPDATE:
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
return Object.assign({}, state, {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
showAsset: Object.assign({}, state.showAsset, {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
error: action.data.error,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
id : action.data.id,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
}),
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
case actions.SHOW_ASSET_CLEAR:
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
return Object.assign({}, state, {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
showAsset: Object.assign({}, state.showAsset, {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
error: null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
id : null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
}),
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
// add asset to asset list
|
||||
case actions.ASSET_LIST_UPSERT:
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
case actions.ASSET_LIST_ADD:
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
return Object.assign({}, state, {
|
||||
assetList: Object.assign({}, state.assetList, {
|
||||
[action.data.id]: {
|
||||
|
|
@ -106,12 +83,10 @@ export default function (state = initialState, action) {
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
channelRequests: Object.assign({}, state.channelRequests, {
|
||||
[action.data.id]: {
|
||||
error : action.data.error,
|
||||
channelData: {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
name : action.data.name,
|
||||
longId : action.data.longId,
|
||||
shortId: action.data.shortId,
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
}),
|
||||
});
|
||||
// show a channel
|
||||
|
|
@ -134,9 +109,10 @@ export default function (state = initialState, action) {
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
return Object.assign({}, state, {
|
||||
channelList: Object.assign({}, state.channelList, {
|
||||
[action.data.id]: {
|
||||
error : action.data.error,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
channelData: action.data.channelData,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
claimsData : action.data.claimsData,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
name : action.data.name,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
longId : action.data.longId,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
shortId : action.data.shortId,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
claimsData: action.data.claimsData,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
}),
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
|
|
@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ function* newChannelRequest (action) {
|
|||
({success, message, data} = yield call(getChannelData, name, channelId));
|
||||
} catch (error) {
|
||||
// return yield put(addChannelRequest(id, error.message, null, null, null));
|
||||
return yield put(updateRequestError(message));
|
||||
return yield put(updateRequestError(error.message));
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (!success) {
|
||||
// return yield put(addChannelRequest(id, message, null, null, null));
|
||||
|
|
@ -34,8 +34,7 @@ function* newChannelRequest (action) {
|
|||
}
|
||||
const { longChannelClaimId: longId, shortChannelClaimId: shortId } = data;
|
||||
yield put(addChannelRequest(id, null, name, longId, shortId));
|
||||
const channelData = {name, longId, shortId};
|
||||
yield put(showNewChannel(channelData));
|
||||
yield put(showNewChannel(name, shortId, longId));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function* watchNewAssetRequest () {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|||
import { call, put, takeLatest } from 'redux-saga/effects';
|
||||
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';
|
||||
|
||||
function* getAssetDataAndShowAsset (action) {
|
||||
|
|
@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ function* getAssetDataAndShowAsset (action) {
|
|||
try {
|
||||
({success, message, data: shortId} = yield call(getShortId, name, claimId));
|
||||
} catch (error) {
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowAsset(error.message, null));
|
||||
return yield put(updateRequestError(error.message));
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (!success) {
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowAsset(message, null));
|
||||
return yield put(updateRequestError(message));
|
||||
}
|
||||
// if no error, get claim data
|
||||
success = null;
|
||||
|
|
@ -21,13 +21,13 @@ function* getAssetDataAndShowAsset (action) {
|
|||
try {
|
||||
({success, message, data: claimData} = yield call(getClaimData, name, claimId));
|
||||
} catch (error) {
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowAsset(error.message, null));
|
||||
return yield put(updateRequestError(error.message));
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (!success) {
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowAsset(message, null));
|
||||
return yield put(updateRequestError(message));
|
||||
}
|
||||
yield put(upsertAssetToAssetList(id, null, name, claimId, shortId, claimData));
|
||||
yield put(updateShowAsset(null, id));
|
||||
yield put(addAssetToAssetList(id, null, name, claimId, shortId, claimData));
|
||||
yield put(updateRequestError(null));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function* watchShowNewAsset () {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,22 +1,22 @@
|
|||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
import { call, put, takeLatest } from 'redux-saga/effects';
|
||||
import * as actions from 'constants/show_action_types';
|
||||
import { updateShowChannel, addNewChannelToChannelList, updateChannelClaims } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
import { updateRequestError, addNewChannelToChannelList, updateChannelClaims } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
import { getChannelClaims } from 'api/channelApi';
|
||||
|
||||
function* getChannelClaimsAndShowChannel (action) {
|
||||
const { id, channelData: {name, shortId, longId} } = action.data;
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
const { id, name, shortId, longId } = action.data;
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
console.log('getchannelclaimsandshowchannel', id, name, shortId, longId);
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
let success, message, claimsData;
|
||||
try {
|
||||
({ success, message, data: claimsData } = yield call(getChannelClaims, name, longId, 1));
|
||||
} catch (error) {
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowChannel(error.message, null));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
return yield put(updateRequestError(error.message));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (!success) {
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowChannel(message, null));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
return yield put(updateRequestError(message));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
}
|
||||
const channelData = {name, shortId, longId};
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
yield put(addNewChannelToChannelList(id, null, channelData, claimsData));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
yield put(updateShowChannel(null, id));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
yield put(addNewChannelToChannelList(id, name, shortId, longId, claimsData));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
yield put(updateRequestError(null));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function* watchShowNewChannel () {
|
||||
|
|
@ -24,17 +24,17 @@ export function* watchShowNewChannel () {
|
|||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
function* getNewClaimsAndUpdateClaimsList (action) {
|
||||
const { channelListId, name, longId, page } = action.data;
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
const { channelKey, name, longId, page } = action.data;
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
let success, message, claimsData;
|
||||
try {
|
||||
({ success, message, data: claimsData } = yield call(getChannelClaims, name, longId, page));
|
||||
} catch (error) {
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowChannel(error.message, null));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
return yield put(updateRequestError(error.message));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (!success) {
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowChannel(message, null));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
return yield put(updateRequestError(message));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
}
|
||||
yield put(updateChannelClaims(channelListId, claimsData));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
yield put(updateChannelClaims(channelKey, claimsData));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function* watchShowNewChannelClaimsRequest () {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
I think generally the pattern is that an action is
{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }just to keep things consistent.datacan be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that