React router #343

Merged
bones7242 merged 96 commits from react-router into master 2018-02-15 08:02:17 +01:00
11 changed files with 161 additions and 48 deletions
Showing only changes of commit 320e83ca00 - Show all commits

View file

@ -19,3 +19,29 @@ export function updateRequestWithAssetRequest (name, id, channelName, channelId,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:57:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

I think generally the pattern is that an action is { type: "some string", data: { name, id... } } just to keep things consistent. data can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that

I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:05:56 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

View file

@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ AssetDisplay.propTypes = {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

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

I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same <AssetDisplay /> it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago

I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I had a misunderstanding of how the this context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.

I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

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

I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same <AssetDisplay /> it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago

I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I had a misunderstanding of how the this context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.

I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
contentType: PropTypes.string.isRequired, contentType: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
fileExt : PropTypes.string.isRequired, fileExt : PropTypes.string.isRequired,
thumbnail : PropTypes.string, thumbnail : PropTypes.string,
// shortId : PropTypes.string.isRequired,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

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

I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same <AssetDisplay /> it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago

I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I had a misunderstanding of how the this context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.

I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
}; };
export default AssetDisplay; export default AssetDisplay;

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

Why do you do const that = this?

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

I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same <AssetDisplay /> it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago

I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I had a misunderstanding of how the this context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.

I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:47:37 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Why do you do const that = this?

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

I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same <AssetDisplay /> it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago

I think this is another piece you can move entirely into redux. Currently if this component is rendered, then a user navigates away and comes back to the same `<AssetDisplay />` it will make these requests again, even if you just made them a second ago
bones7242 commented 2018-02-07 00:13:24 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I had a misunderstanding of how the this context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.

I had a misunderstanding of how the `this` context works and when I needed to pass this in to a function manually. I was able to remove it from the app in multiple places where it isn't necessary.

View file

@ -1,2 +1,5 @@
export const REQUEST_UPDATE_CHANNEL = 'REQUEST_UPDATE_CHANNEL'; export const REQUEST_UPDATE_CHANNEL = 'REQUEST_UPDATE_CHANNEL';
export const REQUEST_UPDATE_CLAIM = 'REQUEST_UPDATE_CLAIM'; export const REQUEST_UPDATE_CLAIM = 'REQUEST_UPDATE_CLAIM';
export const CHANNEL_DATA_UPDATE = 'CHANNEL_DATA_UPDATE';
export const CHANNEL_CLAIMS_DATA_UPDATE = 'CHANNEL_CLAIMS_DATA_UPDATE';
export const ASSET_CLAIM_DATA_UPDATE = 'ASSET_CLAIM_DATA_UPDATE';

View file

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
import { updateChannelClaimsData } from 'actions/show';
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
import View from './view';
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
return {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
claims : show.showChannel.channelClaimsData.claims,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
currentPage: show.showChannel.channelClaimsData.currentPage,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
totalPages : show.showChannel.channelClaimsData.totalPages,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
totalClaims: show.showChannel.channelClaimsData.totalClaims,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
return {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
onChannelClaimsDataUpdate: (claims, currentPage, totalPages, totalClaims) => {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
dispatch(updateChannelClaimsData(claims, currentPage, totalPages, totalClaims));
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
onChannelClaimsDataClear: () => {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
dispatch(updateChannelClaimsData(null, null, null, null));
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
};
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(View);
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:27:54 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Will these nested values always exist?

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

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?

They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
neb-b commented 2018-02-07 08:10:06 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when show is undefined. Which would cause an errror. cannot read property 'showChannel of undefined`.

Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`. Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error

View file

@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
import request from 'utils/request'; import request from 'utils/request';
class ChannelClaimsDisplay extends React.Component { class ChannelClaimsDisplay extends React.Component {
@ -7,10 +7,6 @@ class ChannelClaimsDisplay extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
}; };
this.updateClaimsData = this.updateClaimsData.bind(this); this.updateClaimsData = this.updateClaimsData.bind(this);
this.showPreviousResultsPage = this.showPreviousResultsPage.bind(this); this.showPreviousResultsPage = this.showPreviousResultsPage.bind(this);
@ -35,23 +31,22 @@ class ChannelClaimsDisplay extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
showPreviousResultsPage () { showPreviousResultsPage () {
const previousPage = parseInt(this.state.currentPage) - 1; const previousPage = parseInt(this.props.currentPage) - 1;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
this.updateClaimsData(this.props.name, this.props.longId, previousPage); this.updateClaimsData(this.props.name, this.props.longId, previousPage);
} }
showNextResultsPage () { showNextResultsPage () {
const nextPage = parseInt(this.state.currentPage) + 1; const nextPage = parseInt(this.props.currentPage) + 1;
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
this.updateClaimsData(this.props.name, this.props.longId, nextPage); this.updateClaimsData(this.props.name, this.props.longId, nextPage);
} }
render () { render () {
@ -65,9 +60,9 @@ class ChannelClaimsDisplay extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
name={claim.name} name={claim.name}
claimId={claim.claimId} claimId={claim.claimId}
fileExt={claim.fileExt} fileExt={claim.fileExt}
@ -75,8 +70,8 @@ class ChannelClaimsDisplay extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

This might be what you were thinking of doing, but instead of doing the request here, then calling an action to update the data or set an error, just dispatch `updateClaimsData` action which makes the call, then updates the redux state accordingly. I think making an effort to keep all data logic inside of redux files can simplify a lot of components (for the most part)
key={`${claim.name}-${index}`} key={`${claim.name}-${index}`}
/>)} />)}
<div> <div>
{(this.state.currentPage > 1) && <button onClick={this.showPreviousResultsPage}>Previous Page</button>} {(this.props.currentPage > 1) && <button onClick={this.showPreviousResultsPage}>Previous Page</button>}
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:26:45 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View file

@ -1,12 +1,25 @@
import { connect } from 'react-redux'; import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import View from './view'; import View from './view';
import { updateAssetClaimData } from 'actions/show';
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => { const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
return { return {
modifier : show.assetRequest.modifier, modifier : show.assetRequest.modifier,
claim : show.assetRequest.name, claim : show.assetRequest.name,
extension: show.assetRequest.extension, extension: show.assetRequest.extension,
claimData: show.showAsset.claimData,
}; };
}; };
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View); const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
return {
onAssetClaimDataUpdate: (claimData) => {
dispatch(updateAssetClaimData(claimData));
},
onAssetClaimDataClear: () => {
dispatch(updateAssetClaimData(null));
},
};
};
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(View);

View file

@ -8,7 +8,6 @@ class ShowAsset extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}; };
this.getLongClaimId = this.getLongClaimId.bind(this); this.getLongClaimId = this.getLongClaimId.bind(this);
this.getClaimData = this.getClaimData.bind(this); this.getClaimData = this.getClaimData.bind(this);
@ -43,7 +42,8 @@ class ShowAsset extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
}) })
.catch(error => { .catch(error => {
this.setState({error}); this.setState({error});
@ -87,14 +87,15 @@ class ShowAsset extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:13:36 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View file

@ -1,11 +1,26 @@
import { connect } from 'react-redux'; import { connect } from 'react-redux';
import {updateChannelData} from 'actions/show';
import View from './view'; import View from './view';
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => { const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
return { return {
requestName: show.channelRequest.name, requestName: show.channelRequest.name,
requestId : show.channelRequest.id, requestId : show.channelRequest.id,
name : show.showChannel.channelData.name,
shortId : show.showChannel.channelData.shortId,
longId : show.showChannel.channelData.longId,
}; };
}; };
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View); const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
return {
onChannelDataUpdate: (name, longId, shortId) => {
dispatch(updateChannelData(name, longId, shortId));
},
onChannelDataClear: () => {
dispatch(updateChannelData(null, null, null));
},
};
};
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(View);

View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
import React from 'react'; import React from 'react';
import NavBar from 'containers/NavBar'; import NavBar from 'containers/NavBar';
import ChannelClaimsDisplay from 'components/ChannelClaimsDisplay'; import ChannelClaimsDisplay from 'containers/ChannelClaimsDisplay';
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
import request from 'utils/request'; import request from 'utils/request';
class ShowChannel extends React.Component { class ShowChannel extends React.Component {
@ -8,9 +8,6 @@ class ShowChannel extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
super(props); super(props);
this.state = { this.state = {
error: null, error: null,
name : null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
shortId: null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
longId : null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
}; };
this.getAndStoreChannelData = this.getAndStoreChannelData.bind(this); this.getAndStoreChannelData = this.getAndStoreChannelData.bind(this);
} }
@ -32,17 +29,16 @@ class ShowChannel extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
if (!success) { if (!success) {
return that.setState({error: message}); return that.setState({error: message});
} }
this.setState({ that.setState({error: null}); // note: store this error at app level also
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
error : null, that.props.onChannelDataUpdate(data.channelName, data.longChannelClaimId, data.shortChannelClaimId);
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
name : data.channelName,
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
longId : data.longChannelClaimId,
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
shortId: data.shortChannelClaimId,
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
});
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
}) })
.catch((error) => { .catch((error) => {
that.setState({error: error.message}); that.setState({error: error.message});
}); });
} }
componentWillUnmount () {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
this.props.onChannelDataClear();
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
render () { render () {
return ( return (
<div> <div>
@ -56,17 +52,12 @@ class ShowChannel extends React.Component {
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
) : ( ) : (
<div className="row row--tall row--padded"> <div className="row row--tall row--padded">
<div className="column column--10"> <div className="column column--10">
<h2>channel name: {this.state.name ? this.state.name : 'loading...'}</h2> <h2>channel name: {this.props.name ? this.props.name : 'loading...'}</h2>
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
<p>full channel id: {this.state.longId ? this.state.longId : 'loading...'}</p> <p>full channel id: {this.props.longId ? this.props.longId : 'loading...'}</p>
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
<p>short channel id: {this.state.shortId ? this.state.shortId : 'loading...'}</p> <p>short channel id: {this.props.shortId ? this.props.shortId : 'loading...'}</p>
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
</div> </div>
<div className="column column--10"> <div className="column column--10">
{(this.state.name && this.state.longId) && {(this.props.name && this.props.longId) && <ChannelClaimsDisplay />}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
<ChannelClaimsDisplay
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
name={this.state.name}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
longId={this.state.longId}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
/>
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
}
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
</div> </div>
</div> </div>
)} )}

neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
neb-b commented 2018-02-13 06:15:15 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Same comments above about previousRequest. I think a more understandable approach would just be:

if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be: ``` if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...) ```
bones7242 commented 2018-02-14 02:18:19 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.

View file

@ -18,6 +18,22 @@ const initialState = {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
}, },
extension: null, extension: null,
}, },
showChannel: {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
channelData: {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
name : null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
shortId: null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
longId : null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
channelClaimsData: {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
claims : null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
currentPage: null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
totalPages : null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
totalClaims: null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
showAsset: {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
claimData: null,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
}; };
/* /*
@ -49,6 +65,33 @@ export default function (state = initialState, action) {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
extension: action.extension, extension: action.extension,
}, },
}); });
case actions.CHANNEL_DATA_UPDATE:
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
return Object.assign({}, state, {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
showChannel: Object.assign({}, state.showChannel, {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
channelData: Object.assign({}, state.channel, {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
name : action.name,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
shortId: action.shortId,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
longId : action.longId,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
}),
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
}),
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
});
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
case actions.CHANNEL_CLAIMS_DATA_UPDATE:
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
return Object.assign({}, state, {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
showChannel: Object.assign({}, state.showChannel, {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
channelClaimsData: {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
claims : action.claims,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
currentPage: action.currentPage,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
totalPages : action.totalPages,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
totalClaims: action.totalClaims,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
}),
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
});
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
case actions.ASSET_CLAIM_DATA_UPDATE:
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
return Object.assign({}, state, {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
showAsset: {
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
claimData: action.data,
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
},
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
});
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
default: default:
return state; return state;
} }

neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
neb-b commented 2018-02-05 20:12:41 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js

It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.

In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
bones7242 commented 2018-02-09 20:29:01 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.

Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
neb-b commented 2018-02-09 20:57:10 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Here is an example of it in the app https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99