Duplicate _pendingID issue

[bhoomit]

I'm using redux-localstorage to retain store state between page refreshes. In which case ActionCreators will get "reinitialize" and the default _pendingID will reset to 0. Because of this I have duplicate pending ids in the redux store and it causes the issue in getting the latest state from the store.

I have a quick fix for this. But I want to get your opinion on this issue.

[mallison]

What's your idea?

At a quick glance I was thinking we could put that id in the store as action creators can call getState then the pending action reducer can increment it. Not completely sure that'd work.

[bhoomit]

Let me think about your idea. My idea is basically set the default pending
Id to current timestamp. That would make sure it's never a duplicate.
On May 21, 2016 15:27, "Mark Allison" [email protected] wrote:

What's your idea?

At a quick glance I was thinking we could put that id in the store as
action creators can call getState then the pending action reducer can
increment it. Not completely sure that'd work.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#14 (comment)

[mallison]

That would work too.

I wonder if it'd be better to be able to specify a field that's unique for
each endpoint. That way you could match up the ajax response to the pending
item without the need for the _pendingID. It'd also let you do more
advanced things like check if there's already a request in-flight for/with
the same data. For a GET on a collection endpoint you don't need an ID as
you'd only ever want one such request active.

On 21 May 2016 at 11:34, Bhoomit [email protected] wrote:

Let me think about your idea. My idea is basically set the default pending
Id to current timestamp. That would make sure it's never a duplicate.
On May 21, 2016 15:27, "Mark Allison" [email protected] wrote:

What's your idea?

At a quick glance I was thinking we could put that id in the store as
action creators can call getState then the pending action reducer can
increment it. Not completely sure that'd work.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#14 (comment)

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#14 (comment)

[bhoomit]

Yes, I think that would be a better implementation.