React router #343
|
|
@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
|
|||
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
import * as actions from 'constants/show_action_types';
|
||||
|
||||
import { CHANNEL, ASSET_LITE, ASSET_DETAILS } from 'constants/show_request_types';
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
// basic request parsing
|
||||
export function onRequestError (error) {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
|
@ -8,19 +10,22 @@ export function onRequestError (error) {
|
|||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function onParsedChannelRequest (name, id) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
const requestId = `cr#${name}#${id}`;
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function onNewChannelRequest (channelName, channelId) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
const requestType = CHANNEL;
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
const requestId = `cr#${channelName}#${channelId}`;
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.REQUEST_UPDATE_CHANNEL,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { requestId, name, id },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
type: actions.CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { requestType, requestId, channelName, channelId },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export function onParsedAssetRequest (name, id, channelName, channelId, extension) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function onNewAssetRequest (name, id, channelName, channelId, extension) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
const requestType = extension ? ASSET_LITE : ASSET_DETAILS;
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
const requestId = `ar#${name}#${id}#${channelName}#${channelId}`;
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.REQUEST_UPDATE_ASSET,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
type: actions.ASSET_REQUEST_NEW,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: {
|
||||
requestType,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
requestId,
|
||||
name,
|
||||
modifier: {
|
||||
|
|
@ -30,20 +35,12 @@ export function onParsedAssetRequest (name, id, channelName, channelId, extensio
|
|||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
id : channelId,
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
extension,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
},
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
// asset actions
|
||||
|
||||
export function onNewAssetRequest (id, name, modifier) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
type: actions.ASSET_REQUEST_NEW,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { id, name, modifier },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function addRequestToAssetRequests (id, error, name, claimId) {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.ASSET_REQUEST_SUCCESS,
|
||||
|
|
@ -60,13 +57,6 @@ export function addAssetToAssetList (id, error, name, claimId, shortId, claimDat
|
|||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
// channel actions
|
||||
|
||||
export function onNewChannelRequest (id, name, channelId) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
type: actions.CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW,
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: {id, name, channelId},
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function addRequestToChannelRequests (id, error, name, longId, shortId) {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.CHANNEL_REQUEST_ADD,
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,32 +1,22 @@
|
|||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
import NavBar from 'containers/NavBar';
|
||||
import AssetTitle from 'components/AssetTitle';
|
||||
import AssetDisplay from 'components/AssetDisplay';
|
||||
import AssetInfo from 'components/AssetInfo';
|
||||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
class ShowAssetDetails extends React.Component {
|
||||
render () {
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<div>
|
||||
<NavBar/>
|
||||
<div className="row row--tall row--padded">
|
||||
<div className="column column--10">
|
||||
<AssetTitle />
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div className="column column--5 column--sml-10 align-content-top">
|
||||
<div className="row row--padded">
|
||||
<AssetDisplay />
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div><div className="column column--5 column--sml-10 align-content-top">
|
||||
<div className="row row--padded">
|
||||
<AssetInfo />
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
}
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
console.log('mapping state to props', show);
|
||||
// select request info
|
||||
const requestId = show.request.id;
|
||||
// select asset info
|
||||
let asset;
|
||||
const previousRequest = show.assetRequests[requestId] || null;
|
||||
const assetList = show.assetList;
|
||||
if (previousRequest) {
|
||||
const assetKey = `a#${previousRequest.name}#${previousRequest.claimId}`; // note: just store this in the request
|
||||
asset = assetList[assetKey] || null;
|
||||
};
|
||||
// return props
|
||||
return {
|
||||
asset,
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default ShowAssetDetails;
|
||||
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View);
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
39
react/components/ShowAssetDetails/view.jsx
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
|||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
import NavBar from 'containers/NavBar';
|
||||
import ErrorPage from 'components/ErrorPage';
|
||||
import AssetTitle from 'components/AssetTitle';
|
||||
import AssetDisplay from 'components/AssetDisplay';
|
||||
import AssetInfo from 'components/AssetInfo';
|
||||
|
||||
class ShowAssetDetails extends React.Component {
|
||||
render () {
|
||||
const { asset } = this.props;
|
||||
if (asset) {
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<div>
|
||||
<NavBar/>
|
||||
<div className="row row--tall row--padded">
|
||||
<div className="column column--10">
|
||||
<AssetTitle />
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div className="column column--5 column--sml-10 align-content-top">
|
||||
<div className="row row--padded">
|
||||
<AssetDisplay />
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div><div className="column column--5 column--sml-10 align-content-top">
|
||||
<div className="row row--padded">
|
||||
<AssetInfo />
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
}
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
);
|
||||
};
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<ErrorPage error={'loading asset data...'}/>
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default ShowAssetDetails;
|
||||
|
|
@ -2,19 +2,21 @@ import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
|||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
// select name and claim id
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
let name, claimId;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const previousRequest = show.assetRequests[show.request.id];
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const assetKey = `a#${previousRequest.name}#${previousRequest.claimId}`;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const asset = show.assetList[assetKey];
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
if (asset) {
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
name = asset.name;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
claimId = asset.claimId;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
console.log('mapping state to props', show);
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
// select request info
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const requestId = show.request.id;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
// select asset info
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
let asset;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const previousRequest = show.assetRequests[requestId] || null;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
console.log('previous request:', previousRequest);
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const assetList = show.assetList;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
if (previousRequest) {
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
const assetKey = `a#${previousRequest.name}#${previousRequest.claimId}`; // note: just store this in the request
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
asset = assetList[assetKey] || null;
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
};
|
||||
// return props
|
||||
return {
|
||||
name,
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
claimId,
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
asset,
|
||||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated
Then you can just use You can use destructuring twice to avoid all the repeated `this.props.claimData`
`const { claimData: { name, claimId... } } = this.props`
Then you can just use `name={name}`
|
||||
|
|
@ -4,13 +4,13 @@ import AssetDisplay from 'components/AssetDisplay';
|
|||
|
||||
class ShowLite extends React.Component {
|
||||
render () {
|
||||
const { name, claimId } = this.props;
|
||||
const { asset } = this.props;
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<div className="row row--tall flex-container--column flex-container--center-center">
|
||||
{ (name && claimId) &&
|
||||
{ (asset) &&
|
||||
<div>
|
||||
<AssetDisplay />
|
||||
<Link id="asset-boilerpate" className="link--primary fine-print" to={`/${claimId}/${name}`}>hosted via Spee.ch</Link>
|
||||
<Link id="asset-boilerpate" className="link--primary fine-print" to={`/${asset.claimId}/${asset.name}`}>hosted via Spee.ch</Link>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
}
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
20
react/components/ShowChannel/index.js
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
|
|||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
// select request info
|
||||
const requestId = show.request.id;
|
||||
// select request
|
||||
const previousRequest = show.channelRequests[requestId] || null;
|
||||
// select channel
|
||||
let channel;
|
||||
if (previousRequest) {
|
||||
const channelKey = `c#${previousRequest.name}#${previousRequest.longId}`;
|
||||
channel = show.channelList[channelKey] || null;
|
||||
}
|
||||
return {
|
||||
channel,
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(mapStateToProps, null)(View);
|
||||
|
|
@ -4,12 +4,12 @@ import NavBar from 'containers/NavBar';
|
|||
import ChannelClaimsDisplay from 'containers/ChannelClaimsDisplay';
|
||||
|
||||
class ShowChannel extends React.Component {
|
||||
componentDidMount () {
|
||||
const { channel, requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId } = this.props;
|
||||
if (!channel) {
|
||||
return this.props.onNewChannelRequest(requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
// componentDidMount () {
|
||||
// const { channel, requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId } = this.props;
|
||||
// if (!channel) {
|
||||
// return this.props.onNewChannelRequest(requestId, requestChannelName, requestChannelId); // check the channel you have in the request and see you have no channel so fetch that channel?
|
||||
// }
|
||||
// }
|
||||
render () {
|
||||
const { channel } = this.props;
|
||||
if (channel) {
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,15 +1,13 @@
|
|||
// request actions
|
||||
export const REQUEST_UPDATE_CHANNEL = 'REQUEST_UPDATE_CHANNEL';
|
||||
export const REQUEST_UPDATE_ASSET = 'REQUEST_UPDATE_ASSET';
|
||||
export const REQUEST_UPDATE_ERROR = 'REQUEST_UPDATE_ERROR';
|
||||
export const ASSET_REQUEST_NEW = 'ASSET_REQUEST_NEW';
|
||||
export const CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW = 'CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW';
|
||||
|
||||
// asset actions
|
||||
export const ASSET_REQUEST_NEW = 'ASSET_REQUEST_NEW';
|
||||
export const ASSET_REQUEST_SUCCESS = 'ASSET_REQUEST_SUCCESS';
|
||||
export const ASSET_ADD = `ASSET_ADD`;
|
||||
|
||||
// channel actions
|
||||
export const CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW = 'CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW';
|
||||
export const CHANNEL_REQUEST_ADD = 'CHANNEL_REQUEST_ADD';
|
||||
export const CHANNEL_ADD = 'CHANNEL_ADD';
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
|
|||
export const CHANNEL = 'CHANNEL';
|
||||
export const ASSET = 'ASSET';
|
||||
export const ASSET_LITE = 'ASSET_LITE';
|
||||
export const ASSET_DETAILS = 'ASSET_DETAILS';
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -15,10 +15,8 @@ const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
|||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
const mapDispatchToProps = () => {
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
return {
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
onUpdateChannelClaims,
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
const mapDispatchToProps = {
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
onUpdateChannelClaims,
|
||||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(View);
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
Will these nested values always exist? Will these nested values always exist?
They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking? They will always exist when ChannelClaimsDisplay is rendered, unless that should change... I am updated it to be destructured, is that what you were thinking?
I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error I was just wondering if there would ever be a case when `show` is undefined. Which would cause an errror. `cannot read property 'showChannel` of undefined`.
Or if any of those children would be undefined which would throw an error
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,35 +0,0 @@
|
|||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
import { onNewAssetRequest } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
// select request info
|
||||
const requestId = show.request.id;
|
||||
const requestName = show.request.data.name;
|
||||
const requestModifier = show.request.data.modifier;
|
||||
const requestExtension = show.request.data.extension;
|
||||
const assetList = show.assetList;
|
||||
// select asset info
|
||||
const previousRequest = show.assetRequests[show.request.id] || null;
|
||||
let asset;
|
||||
if (previousRequest) {
|
||||
const assetKey = `a#${previousRequest.name}#${previousRequest.claimId}`; // note: just store this in the request
|
||||
asset = assetList[assetKey] || null;
|
||||
};
|
||||
// return props
|
||||
return {
|
||||
requestId,
|
||||
requestName,
|
||||
requestModifier,
|
||||
requestExtension,
|
||||
asset,
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
const mapDispatchToProps = () => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
onNewAssetRequest,
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(View);
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,24 +0,0 @@
|
|||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
import ErrorPage from 'components/ErrorPage';
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
import ShowAssetLite from 'components/ShowAssetLite';
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
import ShowAssetDetails from 'components/ShowAssetDetails';
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
class ShowAsset extends React.Component {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
componentDidMount () {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
const { asset, requestId, requestName, requestModifier } = this.props;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
if (!asset) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
return this.props.onNewAssetRequest(requestId, requestName, requestModifier);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
render () {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
const {asset, requestExtension} = this.props;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
if (asset) {
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
return requestExtension ? <ShowAssetLite/> : <ShowAssetDetails/>;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
return (
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
<ErrorPage error={'loading asset data...'}/>
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
export default ShowAsset;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,32 +0,0 @@
|
|||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
import { onNewChannelRequest } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
// select request info
|
||||
const requestId = show.request.id;
|
||||
const requestChannelName = show.request.data.name;
|
||||
const requestChannelId = show.request.data.id;
|
||||
// select request
|
||||
const previousRequest = show.channelRequests[show.request.id] || null;
|
||||
// select channel
|
||||
let channel;
|
||||
if (previousRequest) {
|
||||
const channelKey = `c#${previousRequest.name}#${previousRequest.longId}`;
|
||||
channel = show.channelList[channelKey] || null;
|
||||
}
|
||||
return {
|
||||
requestId,
|
||||
requestChannelName,
|
||||
requestChannelId,
|
||||
channel,
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
const mapDispatchToProps = () => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
onNewChannelRequest,
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(View);
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
|
|||
import { connect } from 'react-redux';
|
||||
import { onRequestError, onParsedChannelRequest, onParsedAssetRequest } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
import { onRequestError, onNewChannelRequest, onNewAssetRequest } from 'actions/show';
|
||||
import View from './view';
|
||||
|
||||
const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
||||
|
|
@ -9,12 +9,10 @@ const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
|||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
const mapDispatchToProps = () => {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
onRequestError,
|
||||
onParsedChannelRequest,
|
||||
onParsedAssetRequest,
|
||||
};
|
||||
const mapDispatchToProps = {
|
||||
onRequestError,
|
||||
onNewChannelRequest,
|
||||
onNewAssetRequest,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(View);
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,10 +1,11 @@
|
|||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
import ErrorPage from 'components/ErrorPage';
|
||||
import ShowAsset from 'containers/ShowAsset';
|
||||
import ShowChannel from 'containers/ShowChannel';
|
||||
import ShowAssetLite from 'components/ShowAssetLite';
|
||||
import ShowAssetDetails from 'components/ShowAssetDetails';
|
||||
import ShowChannel from 'components/ShowChannel';
|
||||
import lbryUri from 'utils/lbryUri';
|
||||
|
||||
import { CHANNEL, ASSET } from 'constants/show_request_types';
|
||||
import { CHANNEL, ASSET_LITE, ASSET_DETAILS } from 'constants/show_request_types';
|
||||
|
||||
class ShowPage extends React.Component {
|
||||
constructor (props) {
|
||||
|
|
@ -42,9 +43,9 @@ class ShowPage extends React.Component {
|
|||
}
|
||||
// update the store
|
||||
if (isChannel) {
|
||||
return this.props.onParsedAssetRequest(claimName, null, channelName, channelClaimId, extension);
|
||||
return this.props.onNewAssetRequest(claimName, null, channelName, channelClaimId, extension);
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
return this.props.onParsedAssetRequest(claimName, claimId, null, null, extension);
|
||||
return this.props.onNewAssetRequest(claimName, claimId, null, null, extension);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
parseAndUpdateClaimOnly (claim) {
|
||||
|
|
@ -58,7 +59,7 @@ class ShowPage extends React.Component {
|
|||
}
|
||||
// return early if this request is for a channel
|
||||
if (isChannel) {
|
||||
return this.props.onParsedChannelRequest(channelName, channelClaimId);
|
||||
return this.props.onNewChannelRequest(channelName, channelClaimId);
|
||||
}
|
||||
// if not for a channel, parse the claim request
|
||||
let claimName, extension; // if I am destructuring below, do I still need to declare these here?
|
||||
|
|
@ -67,7 +68,7 @@ class ShowPage extends React.Component {
|
|||
} catch (error) {
|
||||
return this.props.onRequestError(error.message);
|
||||
}
|
||||
this.props.onParsedAssetRequest(claimName, null, null, null, extension);
|
||||
this.props.onNewAssetRequest(claimName, null, null, null, extension);
|
||||
}
|
||||
render () {
|
||||
const { error, requestType } = this.props;
|
||||
|
|
@ -79,8 +80,10 @@ class ShowPage extends React.Component {
|
|||
switch (requestType) {
|
||||
case CHANNEL:
|
||||
return <ShowChannel />;
|
||||
case ASSET:
|
||||
return <ShowAsset />;
|
||||
case ASSET_LITE:
|
||||
return <ShowAssetLite />;
|
||||
case ASSET_DETAILS:
|
||||
return <ShowAssetDetails />;
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return <p>loading...</p>;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,13 +1,11 @@
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
import * as actions from 'constants/show_action_types';
|
||||
import { CHANNEL, ASSET } from 'constants/show_request_types';
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
import { LOCAL_CHECK, ERROR } from 'constants/asset_display_states';
|
||||
|
||||
const initialState = {
|
||||
request: {
|
||||
error : null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
type : null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
data : null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
requestId: null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
error: null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
type : null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
id : null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
channelRequests: {},
|
||||
channelList : {},
|
||||
|
|
@ -28,30 +26,13 @@ export default function (state = initialState, action) {
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
error: action.data,
|
||||
}),
|
||||
});
|
||||
case actions.REQUEST_UPDATE_CHANNEL:
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
case actions.CHANNEL_REQUEST_NEW:
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
case actions.ASSET_REQUEST_NEW:
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
return Object.assign({}, state, {
|
||||
request: {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
type : CHANNEL,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
error: null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
id : action.data.requestId,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
data : {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
name: action.data.name,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
id : action.data.id,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
case actions.REQUEST_UPDATE_ASSET:
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
return Object.assign({}, state, {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
request: {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
type : ASSET,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
error: null,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
id : action.data.requestId,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
data : {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
name : action.data.name,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
modifier : action.data.modifier,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
extension: action.data.extension,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
request: Object.assign({}, state.request, {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
type: action.data.requestType,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
id : action.data.requestId,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
}),
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
});
|
||||
// asset actions
|
||||
case actions.ASSET_REQUEST_SUCCESS:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
|
|
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ import { addRequestToAssetRequests, onRequestError, addAssetToAssetList } from '
|
|||
import { getLongClaimId, getShortId, getClaimData } from 'api/assetApi';
|
||||
|
||||
function* newAssetRequest (action) {
|
||||
const { id, name, modifier } = action.data;
|
||||
const { requestId, name, modifier } = action.data;
|
||||
// get long id
|
||||
console.log(`getting asset long id ${name}`);
|
||||
let longId;
|
||||
|
|
@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ function* newAssetRequest (action) {
|
|||
return yield put(onRequestError(error.message));
|
||||
}
|
||||
// put action to add request to asset request list
|
||||
yield put(addRequestToAssetRequests(id, null, name, longId));
|
||||
yield put(addRequestToAssetRequests(requestId, null, name, longId));
|
||||
// get short Id
|
||||
console.log(`getting asset short id ${name} ${longId}`);
|
||||
let shortId;
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -4,28 +4,28 @@ import { addNewChannelToChannelList, addRequestToChannelRequests, onRequestError
|
|||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
import { getChannelClaims, getChannelData } from 'api/channelApi';
|
||||
|
||||
function* getNewChannelAndUpdateChannelList (action) {
|
||||
const { id, name, channelId } = action.data;
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
const { requestId, channelName, channelId } = action.data;
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
// get channel long id
|
||||
console.log('getting channel long id and short id');
|
||||
let longId, shortId;
|
||||
try {
|
||||
({ data: {longChannelClaimId: longId, shortChannelClaimId: shortId} } = yield call(getChannelData, name, channelId));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
({ data: {longChannelClaimId: longId, shortChannelClaimId: shortId} } = yield call(getChannelData, channelName, channelId));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
} catch (error) {
|
||||
return yield put(onRequestError(error.message));
|
||||
}
|
||||
// store the request in the channel requests list
|
||||
yield put(addRequestToChannelRequests(id, null, name, longId, shortId));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
yield put(addRequestToChannelRequests(requestId, null, channelName, longId, shortId));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
// get channel claims data
|
||||
console.log('getting channel claims data');
|
||||
let claimsData;
|
||||
try {
|
||||
({ data: claimsData } = yield call(getChannelClaims, name, longId, 1));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
({ data: claimsData } = yield call(getChannelClaims, channelName, longId, 1));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
} catch (error) {
|
||||
return yield put(onRequestError(error.message));
|
||||
}
|
||||
// store the channel data in the channel list
|
||||
const channelKey = `c#${name}#${longId}`;
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
yield put(addNewChannelToChannelList(channelKey, name, shortId, longId, claimsData));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
const channelKey = `c#${channelName}#${longId}`;
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
yield put(addNewChannelToChannelList(channelKey, channelName, shortId, longId, claimsData));
|
||||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
// clear any request errors
|
||||
yield put(onRequestError(null));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
I don't have any experience using Generally you want I don't have any experience using `redux-saga` so I might just not understand what is happening.
Generally you want `XX_SUCCESS` and `XX_FAIL` actions separated. That makes it a lot easier handling the data on the reducer.
If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated. IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue If these aren't being used anywhere else, I don't think they need to be separated.
IMO it would make these saga files easier to understand/follow, but not a big issue
|
||||
I think generally the pattern is that an action is
{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }just to keep things consistent.datacan be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that