-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
manually inserting Exception #13
Comments
I'm open to this idea, but it does have a whiff of broken abstraction to it. @treelzebub do you perchance have an opinion on this? |
whoa i've missed a whole bunch of big changes up in hurrr. didn't know Fetcher was just a lambda now, but i'm into it. we've made error propagation Bismarck's job when it used to be Fetcher's, and imo that's a great move that gets rid of a bunch of duplicated effort. to the question at hand, i'm not sure i understand: why would you want to |
@treelzebub if you recall in the level days, we would do "optimistic" mutations on transactions, and that would involve injecting an updated value into the local store while we await the canonical value from a fetch. Given that there is a good reason to override the authority of the data store, I think it definitely stands to reason that we might want to reflect a failed external operation here-- but similarly, this may just be an argument for punting the responsibility to the client to create a higher-level aggregator of errors, which is composed of bismarck errors, other systems etc... |
this is kinda where i'm going with this. in my mind it's trivial to put your reactive element in the fetcher and propagate errors yourself. unless, of course, you're using |
So was thinking if we can call
Bismarck.insert(Data)
, for whenever we might need to manually update Bismarck data, it might also be necessary to manually insert an error response.For example, if the
Fetcher
just makes aget
request, but later we need to make aput
or apost
, we would need to do that manually. If that network request has an error, shouldn't we also send that through to theeachError
callback?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: