React router #343
|
|
@ -100,17 +100,17 @@ export function addChannelRequest (id, error, name, longId, shortId) {
|
|||
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
|
||||
// show a channel
|
||||
|
||||
export function showNewChannel (id, name, longId, channelData) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function showNewChannel (id, channelData) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_NEW,
|
||||
data: { id, name, longId, channelData },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { id, channelData },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export function updateShowChannel (error, channelData, claimData) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
export function updateShowChannel (error, name, shortId, longId, claimData) {
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
return {
|
||||
type: actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_UPDATE,
|
||||
data: { error, channelData, claimData },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
data: { error, name, shortId, longId, claimData },
|
||||
|
I think generally the pattern is that an action is I think generally the pattern is that an action is `{ type: "some string", data: { name, id... } }` just to keep things consistent. `data` can be an object or a string, but I think it's helpful to put everything inside of that
This probably shouldn't be called This probably shouldn't be called `XXX_ASYNC` since it isn't async
|
||||
};
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
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
|
||||
|
|
@ -2,26 +2,15 @@ import Request from 'utils/request';
|
|||
import request from '../utils/request';
|
||||
|
||||
export function getChannelData (name, id) {
|
||||
console.log('getting and storing channel data for channel:', name, id);
|
||||
console.log('getting channel data for channel:', name, id);
|
||||
if (!id) id = 'none';
|
||||
const url = `/api/channel/data/${name}/${id}`;
|
||||
return request(url);
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export function getChannelClaims (name, longId, page) {
|
||||
console.log('getting and storing channel claims for channel:', name, longId);
|
||||
console.log('getting channel claims for channel:', name, longId);
|
||||
if (!page) page = 1;
|
||||
const url = `/api/channel/claims/${name}/${longId}/${page}`;
|
||||
return Request(url);
|
||||
// .then(({ success, message, data }) => {
|
||||
// console.log('api/channel-claims response:', data);
|
||||
// if (!success) {
|
||||
// return this.setState({error: message});
|
||||
// }
|
||||
// this.setState({error: null}); // move this error to redux state
|
||||
// this.props.onChannelClaimsDataUpdate(data.claims, data.currentPage, data.totalPages, data.totalResults);
|
||||
// })
|
||||
// .catch((error) => {
|
||||
// this.setState({error: error.message});
|
||||
// });
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ const mapStateToProps = ({ show }) => {
|
|||
requestModifier : show.request.data.modifier,
|
||||
requestExtension: show.request.data.extension,
|
||||
assetRequests : show.assetRequests,
|
||||
assets : show.assets,
|
||||
assetList : show.assetList,
|
||||
// show asset
|
||||
error : show.showAsset.error,
|
||||
name : show.showAsset.name,
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ 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.
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
return this.props.onRequestError(error);
|
||||
}
|
||||
// update the showAsset data in the store
|
||||
const { assets } = this.props;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
const { assetList } = this.props;
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
const assetId = `a#${name}#${claimId}`;
|
||||
const existingAssetRecord = assets[assetId];
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
const existingAssetRecord = assetList[assetId];
|
||||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
|
||||
if (existingAssetRecord) { // case: the asset data already exists
|
||||
this.showExistingAsset(existingAssetRecord);
|
||||
} else { // case: the asset data does not exist yet
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion I also think I think you are still creating more work than necessary with this. In my opinion `previousRequest` shouldn't even exist. In the `mapStateToProps` you should be able to map the `asset` from your state into the component. If `!asset` then make the request.
I also think `onShowNewAsset` and `onNewRequest` can be combined. More specifically I don't think `onShowNewAsset` is needed. It might just be my lack of understanding with the current data flow, but you shouldn't need to manually say "show this asset". A better approach would be "select the asset with this id".
Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with Ok, I think I'm getting closer. I was able to do away with `onShowNewAsset` and combine the needed logic from its action (retrieving the asset's claim data) into `onNewRequest`. That allowed me to remove `previousRequest` from the props I am passing to the `<ShowAsset />` component. However, I am still checking for a `previousRequest` in the mapStateToProps function. Do you see a way to avoid that step altogether? The reason for storing and checking the previous requests is to avoid having to retrieve new information for a request that was already made (i.e. to avoid having to request the full `claimId` from the server). I'm trying to figure out if that can be skipped or consolidated, but I am not sure how.
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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -27,11 +27,11 @@ const mapDispatchToProps = dispatch => {
|
|||
onRequestError: (error) => {
|
||||
dispatch(updateRequestError(error, null, null));
|
||||
},
|
||||
onShowNewChannel: (id, name, longId) => {
|
||||
dispatch(showNewChannel(id, name, longId));
|
||||
onShowNewChannel: (id, channelData) => {
|
||||
dispatch(showNewChannel(id, channelData));
|
||||
},
|
||||
onShowExistingChannel: (error, channelData, claimData) => {
|
||||
dispatch(updateShowChannel(error, channelData, claimData));
|
||||
onShowExistingChannel: (error, name, shortId, longId, claimData) => {
|
||||
dispatch(updateShowChannel(error, name, shortId, longId, claimData));
|
||||
},
|
||||
onShowChannelClear: () => {
|
||||
dispatch(clearShowChannel());
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -49,17 +49,18 @@ class ShowChannel extends React.Component {
|
|||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
if (existingChannel) {
|
||||
this.showExistingChannel(channelRecordId, existingChannel);
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
this.showNewChannel(channelRecordId, channelData.name, channelData.longId, channelData);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
this.showNewChannel(channelRecordId, channelData);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
showNewChannel (channelRecordId, name, longId) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
this.props.onShowNewChannel(channelRecordId, name, longId);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
showNewChannel (channelRecordId, channelData) {
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
this.props.onShowNewChannel(channelRecordId, channelData);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
};
|
||||
showExistingChannel (existingChannel) {
|
||||
const { error, channelData, claimData } = existingChannel;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
this.props.onShowExistingChannel(error, channelData, claimData);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
const { error, channelData: {name, shortId, longId}, claimData } = existingChannel;
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
this.props.onShowExistingChannel(error, name, shortId, longId, claimData);
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
};
|
||||
componentWillUnmount () {
|
||||
console.log('ShowChannel will unmount');
|
||||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
this.props.onShowChannelClear();
|
||||
}
|
||||
render () {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
Same comments above about Same comments above about `previousRequest`. I think a more understandable approach would just be:
```
if (!channel) this.props.onNewChannelRequest(...)
```
See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done. See above re: previous request. I mostly fixed this, but not sure if more consolidation can be done.
|
||||
|
|
@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ const initialState = {
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
channelRequests: {},
|
||||
channelList : {},
|
||||
assetRequests : {},
|
||||
assets : {}, // same schema as showAsset
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
assetList : {}, // same schema as showAsset
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
|
|
@ -141,9 +141,13 @@ 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
|
||||
case actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_UPDATE:
|
||||
return Object.assign({}, state, {
|
||||
showChannel: {
|
||||
error : action.error,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
channelData: action.channelData,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
claimData : action.claimData,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
error : action.data.error,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
channelData: {
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
name : action.data.name,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
shortId: action.data.shortId,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
longId : action.data.longId,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
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
|
||||
claimData: action.data.claimData,
|
||||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
|
||||
},
|
||||
});
|
||||
case actions.SHOW_CHANNEL_CLEAR:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux. It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it. In the app we use a util to avoid a lot of the boiler plate with redux.
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/util/redux-utils.js
It just makes it so you don't need to use a switch. I really like it.
Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works. Hmm, I like the readability of the switch statement, but I might use this util instead. I have to look at the app and see exactly how it works.
Here is an example of it in the app Here is an example of it in the app
https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-app/blob/master/src/renderer/redux/reducers/shape_shift.js#L99
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
|
||||
|
|
@ -97,27 +97,28 @@ function* newChannelRequest (action) {
|
|||
if (!success) {
|
||||
return yield put(addChannelRequest(id, message, null, null, null));
|
||||
}
|
||||
const { channelName, longChannelClaimId, shortChannelClaimId } = data;
|
||||
yield put(addChannelRequest(id, null, channelName, longChannelClaimId, shortChannelClaimId));
|
||||
const channelRecordId = `c#${channelName}#${longChannelClaimId}`; // move to the action
|
||||
yield put(showNewChannel(channelRecordId, channelName, longChannelClaimId ));
|
||||
const { longChannelClaimId: longId, shortChannelClaimId: shortId } = data;
|
||||
yield put(addChannelRequest(id, null, name, longId, shortId));
|
||||
const channelRecordId = `c#${name}#${longId}`; // move to the action
|
||||
const channelData = {name, longId, shortId};
|
||||
yield put(showNewChannel(channelRecordId, channelData));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function* getNewChannelDataAndShowChannel (action) {
|
||||
const { id, name, longId, channelData } = action;
|
||||
const { id, channelData: {name, shortId, longId} } = action.data;
|
||||
let success, message, claimsData;
|
||||
try {
|
||||
({ success, message, data: claimsData } = yield call(getChannelClaims, name, longId, 1));
|
||||
} catch (error) {
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowChannel(error.message, channelData));
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowChannel(error.message, name, shortId, longId));
|
||||
// yield put(addNewChannelToChannelList(id, error.message, null, null));
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (!success) {
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowChannel(message, channelData));
|
||||
return yield put(updateShowChannel(message, name, shortId, longId));
|
||||
// yield put(addNewChannelToChannelList(id, message, null, null));
|
||||
}
|
||||
yield put(updateShowChannel(null, channelData, claimsData));
|
||||
yield put(addNewChannelToChannelList(id, null, channelData, claimsData));
|
||||
yield put(updateShowChannel(null, name, shortId, longId, claimsData));
|
||||
yield put(addNewChannelToChannelList(id, null, name, shortId, longId, claimsData));
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function* watchNewAssetRequest () {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
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