Skip to content
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

Add action creator for RSAA action #228

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Jan 18, 2020
Merged

Conversation

artursvonda
Copy link
Contributor

Created action creator for cleaner boundary for RSAA actions.
This abstracts shape of the action away from user and allows. And it allows to add validation to action creation process if we choose to (which can be dev build only thing).

This will also allow for nicer and cleaner typings for Typescript.

This gives cleaner boundary for RSAA actions, gives clean API and allows to add validation to action creation process. And this allows for nicer and cleaner typings for Typescript.
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 27, 2019

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling 3b63f2a on artursvonda:action-creator into 6e782cd on agraboso:master.

@nason
Copy link
Collaborator

nason commented Dec 15, 2019

Hi @artursvonda, thanks for the contribution! This looks reasonable.

Would you mind adding some documentation about this?

@artursvonda
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @artursvonda, thanks for the contribution! This looks reasonable.

Would you mind adding some documentation about this?

Will do

@artursvonda
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rewrote docs to use createAction as the preferred way to create RSAA actions.

@iamandrewluca
Copy link
Collaborator

iamandrewluca commented Dec 26, 2019

Should RSAA be marked with some JsDoc annotation? Like @private or @deprecated to discourage it's usage?

@artursvonda
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should RSAA be marked with some JsDoc annotation? Like @private or @deprecated to discourage it's usage?

Yeah, makes sense. Will add that. If we want to remove the export in some future version, we should @deprecated to indicate that it be removed. If we want to keep it there but discourage, @private makes sense.

I think it makes sense to remove it as long as all use-cases are handled without it. And the only use-case I can think of, that is not yet handled, is getting options from action. But that can be added later if required.

@artursvonda
Copy link
Contributor Author

Done

@nason
Copy link
Collaborator

nason commented Jan 3, 2020

Thank you @artursvonda!

I'm going to merge and release this as 3.2.0 as soon as I have a chance, tonight or tomorrow.

@artursvonda
Copy link
Contributor Author

Reminder to merge and release this :)

@nason
Copy link
Collaborator

nason commented Jan 17, 2020

My bad @artursvonda! So sorry for the delay. I will ship this after after work today!

@nason nason merged commit 0cfb39b into agraboso:master Jan 18, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants