-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
Store props from callback #1900
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
nickmelnikov82
wants to merge
4
commits into
plotly:dev
Choose a base branch
from
nickmelnikov82:store-props-from-callback
base: dev
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
82b50dd
Added function to store props from callback-generated update.
nickmelnikov82 bf208c4
Added persistence callback test.
nickmelnikov82 fe9a739
Persistence editing function merged.
nickmelnikov82 c0c39b5
Merge branch 'dev' into store-props-from-callback
nickmelnikov82 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nickmelnikov82 my apologies for not reviewing this quicker!
Can you explain the differences between this new function and
recordUiEdit
? Ideally we'd 🌴 combine them into one (which we could callrecordEdit
I guess) with just a flag to distinguish the two situations, then any differences would be crystal clear.The differences I see:
finalPersistence
- makes sense because the UI can't editpersistence
- but in fact I don't see a harm in including this inrecordUiEdit
, it's not a big overhead. Which brings up that in the callback case it's also possible to alterpersistence_type
, so presumably we should also createfinalPersistenceType
.finalPersistence !== persistence
? I guess maybe it's more complicated in this case, at least if you change from one truthypersistence
value to another, but it seems to me like we'd still want the new value stored.storage.removeItem
case? Is that situation accessible from the UI as well (ie a case we were always missing)?recordUiEdit
hasconst vals = originalVal === undefined ? [newVal] : [newVal, originalVal];
- ie we don't storeundefined
. I'm not sure the practical consequences of this, but presumably we want to keep that behavior?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.