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

Refactor code structure #85

Merged
merged 55 commits into from
Jan 31, 2018
Merged

Refactor code structure #85

merged 55 commits into from
Jan 31, 2018

Conversation

emasys
Copy link
Owner

@emasys emasys commented Jan 31, 2018

What does this PR do?

Refactor code to match modern coding conventions

Description of Task to be completed?

Make components reuseable

How should this be manually tested?

N/A

Any background context you want to provide?

N/A

What are the relevant pivotal tracker stories?

N/A

Screenshots (if appropriate)

N/A

Questions:

N/A

@emasys emasys merged commit e25897b into develop Jan 31, 2018
this.store[key] = value;
}

removeItem(key) {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing JSDoc comment require-jsdoc

return this.store[key] || null;
}

setItem(key, value) {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing JSDoc comment require-jsdoc

this.store = {};
}

getItem(key) {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing JSDoc comment require-jsdoc

this.store = {};
}

clear() {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing JSDoc comment require-jsdoc

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
class LocalStorageMock {
constructor() {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing JSDoc comment require-jsdoc

delRecipe: PropTypes.func,
history: PropTypes.object,
getRecipe: PropTypes.func,
getUserInfo: PropTypes.func,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

propType "getUserInfo" is not required, but has no corresponding defaultProp declaration react/require-default-props
'getUserInfo' PropType is defined but prop is never used react/no-unused-prop-types

editRecipe: PropTypes.func,
delRecipe: PropTypes.func,
history: PropTypes.object,
getRecipe: PropTypes.func,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

propType "getRecipe" is not required, but has no corresponding defaultProp declaration react/require-default-props
'getRecipe' PropType is defined but prop is never used react/no-unused-prop-types

getRecipeReactions: PropTypes.func,
editRecipe: PropTypes.func,
delRecipe: PropTypes.func,
history: PropTypes.object,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Prop type object is forbidden react/forbid-prop-types
propType "history" is not required, but has no corresponding defaultProp declaration react/require-default-props

setFavorite: PropTypes.func,
getRecipeReactions: PropTypes.func,
editRecipe: PropTypes.func,
delRecipe: PropTypes.func,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

propType "delRecipe" is not required, but has no corresponding defaultProp declaration react/require-default-props

upvote: PropTypes.func,
setFavorite: PropTypes.func,
getRecipeReactions: PropTypes.func,
editRecipe: PropTypes.func,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

propType "editRecipe" is not required, but has no corresponding defaultProp declaration react/require-default-props

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.

2 participants