feat(stash): add useStash and improve other helpers #3320
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 08c6d7a The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 25 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
holic
changed the title
holic
force-pushed
the
holic/stash-helpers
branch
from
05a6731
to
2fcf475
Compare
| export type GetRecordArgs< | ||
| table extends Table = Table, | ||
| defaultValue extends Omit<TableRecord<table>, keyof Key<table>> | undefined = undefined, | ||
| > = propwiseXor<{ stash: Stash }, { state: State }> & { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do you think it's still useful to have both variants (with stash or with state) or should we just change all actions to take in state for simplicity?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For these two actions, I think it's useful to have both and not much work to maintain both.
The other actions don't make as much sense, like setRecords needs to have the original stash to mutate state + notify.
Are there other actions that could benefit from having a state variant?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Another thing on my mind is that we'll likely have a corresponding useRecord and useRecords hooks to mirror the state variant of getRecord and getRecords as shorthands for common usage in the React context:
useStash(stash, (state) => getRecord({ state, table, key })
// to
useRecord({ stash, table, key })The nice things about building with useRecord and useRecords hooks instead of useStash directly is that you avoid the foot gun that is infinite rendering due to unstable return values of a selector without also specifying an equality function - this can all be abstracted away.
No description provided.