[WIP] Fix #59 - Improved Middlewares #127

delgermurun · 2015-05-27T10:33:46Z

Add support for #59

delgermurun · 2015-05-27T10:38:07Z

I've made quick middleware => triggersEnter change.

@arunoda am I heading right direction?

arunoda · 2015-05-27T10:46:48Z

client/router.js

-  _.each(self._middleware, function(fn) {
-    self._page("*", fn);
+
+  self._page('*', function(ctx, next) {


Any reason for running this in a different page middleware and differ it?

There is no reason, just experiment. Moved to initialize.

arunoda · 2015-05-27T10:47:07Z

Yep. You are on the right track :)
For now, we need to keep the middleware API as it is until we release 2.0

delgermurun · 2015-05-28T08:16:36Z

@arunoda I've just added exit triggers support. Can you quickly glance through it? Thanks.

arunoda · 2015-05-28T08:42:00Z

client/router.js

+  self._page("*", function(ctx, next) {
+    _.each(self._triggersEnter, function(fn) {
+      if (typeof fn === 'function') {
+        fn(ctx);


This ctx should be ._current.
It should be the same for others as well.

Do you mean calling every triggers with self._current like fn(self._current)?

Yes.

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM Delgermurun Purevkhuu <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

In client/router.js
#127 (comment)
:

self._page.callbacks = [];

self._page.exits = [];

// add global enter triggers

self._page("*", function(ctx, next) {

_.each(self._triggersEnter, function(fn) {

if (typeof fn === 'function') {

fn(ctx);

Do you mean calling every triggers with self._current like
fn(self._current)?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/meteorhacks/flow-router/pull/127/files#r31215724.

But _current is empty ({}) on global triggersEnter?

What if we call triggersEnter inside our main tracker rather than, doing it inside `page(*)
see: https://github.com/delgermurun/flow-router/blob/improved-middlewares/client/router.js#L313

delgermurun · 2015-05-28T11:08:47Z

@arunoda updated.

arunoda · 2015-05-28T15:06:46Z

client/router.js

  _.each(self._middleware, function(fn) {
    self._page("*", fn);
  });

  _.each(self._routes, function(route) {
    self._page(route.path, route._handler);
+


May be we can isolate this into a seperate function.

arunoda · 2015-05-28T15:08:01Z

Overall this looks great to me.
But I didnt try it out locally.
Let's have some tests too.

delgermurun · 2015-05-28T22:50:20Z

Today I'll implement only and except. Then I'm going to add tests.

arunoda · 2015-05-28T23:01:40Z

Superb.
On 2015 මැයි 29, සිකු at පෙ.ව. 4.20 Delgermurun Purevkhuu <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

Today I'll implement only and except. Then I'm going to add tests.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#127 (comment)
.

delgermurun · 2015-05-29T03:20:00Z

@arunoda only and except support added. Please check this out.

P.S: Sorry for interrupting too much :)

arunoda · 2015-05-29T04:05:41Z

client/router.js

+    return false;
+  }
+
+  if (!name) {


This one affect to the only logic. So, even if it's only for one route
It's possible to call unnamed routes.

How should we declare only for this case? only: [''], only:[] or something else?

Oh, I understand incorrectly. Ignore above comment.

I just realized there is bug, sorry.

delgermurun · 2015-05-29T04:56:25Z

Does !! need on if statement (maybe for performance)? I guess I've read something about it, but can't remember exactly.

It looks so ugly.

arunoda · 2015-05-29T04:57:20Z

I don't think so. For if statements it's okay.
You may need to do it if you really need to send a boolean

arunoda · 2015-05-29T04:58:27Z

client/router.js

@@ -369,3 +427,56 @@ Router.prototype._updateCallbacks = function () {

 Router.prototype._page = page;
 Router.prototype._qs = qs;
+
+function shouldCallTrigger(current, fn) {


You can create these as methods in the Router class. Then we can test them individually.

I did that because of I don't want to make bigger Router class. How does it affect performance?

Don't we have other way to test :)?

We've other ways to test.
If you feel router getting bigger, try to move them to a util namespace.
I really don't like to have private methods hidden inside like this.
(I sometimes do it although if I were lazy)

delgermurun · 2015-05-29T05:36:55Z

@arunoda updated.

Regarding class size, yeah it feels bigger. But let's just create method. Later we can improve.

arunoda · 2015-06-02T06:49:20Z

This implementation looks good to me. I didn't catch your last comment. Sorry for that.
When we can see tests :)
I'm eager to push this into a release.

delgermurun · 2015-06-02T10:49:03Z

@arunoda no problem, I'm glad that you liked it :D.

I'm going to push tests tomorrow.

arunoda · 2015-06-02T10:49:40Z

Awesome :)

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:19 PM Delgermurun Purevkhuu <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

@arunoda https://github.com/arunoda no problem, I'm glad that you liked
it :D.

I'm going to push tests tomorrow.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#127 (comment)
.

delgermurun · 2015-06-02T21:42:12Z

@arunoda added tests.

arunoda · 2015-06-03T04:46:42Z

I think test cases covers all the cases (or at least most of the cases)
I'll do a full code review again and get this PR.

delgermurun · 2015-06-03T05:27:18Z

Awesome.

delgermurun · 2015-06-03T05:33:15Z

Oh. Should I rebase it? @arunoda

arunoda · 2015-06-03T05:46:18Z

I don't think there are any conflicting changes. If you like, rebase squash it.

delgermurun · 2015-06-03T05:56:02Z

I mean "sqaushing" and sqaushed :D

arunoda · 2015-06-03T05:56:43Z

Yeah :)
On 2015 ජූනි 3, බදාදා at පෙ.ව. 11.26 Delgermurun Purevkhuu <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

I mean "sqaushing" and sqaushed :D

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#127 (comment)
.

arunoda · 2015-06-04T00:39:48Z

client/router.js

-      next();
-    }, 0);
+  this._triggersEnter.push(function(ctx) {
+    var str = location.search.slice(1);


I think here we can't depend on the location. I think right now, location is not yet changed?
Quite not sure, I'll check.

Edit: I think, I might be wrong, since now we are not depends on pagejs middleware for this

arunoda · 2015-06-04T01:19:50Z

@delgermurun don't do any changes I requested. I simply did them :)

delgermurun · 2015-06-04T01:21:02Z

@arunoda okay. Thanks.

delgermurun · 2015-06-04T01:26:31Z

@arunoda Oh, one thing to mention. How did you refactor ctx.params.query = self._qs.parse(str); section. It inserts on last of the global enter triggers. I think we should move it to contructor function.

arunoda · 2015-06-04T01:30:26Z

I did this in place where we set _current. here: https://goo.gl/jrqwgi

delgermurun · 2015-06-04T01:32:01Z

Okay. You already noticed that :).

arunoda · 2015-06-04T01:57:47Z

I manually took the PR. It's alive.

delgermurun · 2015-06-04T02:08:57Z

🎉

arunoda reviewed May 27, 2015
View reviewed changes

arunoda reviewed May 28, 2015
View reviewed changes

arunoda reviewed May 29, 2015
View reviewed changes

Implement triggers. Fix #59.

52e0867

arunoda reviewed Jun 4, 2015
View reviewed changes

arunoda closed this Jun 4, 2015

delgermurun deleted the improved-middlewares branch June 4, 2015 02:09

[WIP] Fix #59 - Improved Middlewares #127

[WIP] Fix #59 - Improved Middlewares #127

Conversation

delgermurun commented May 27, 2015

delgermurun commented May 27, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arunoda commented May 27, 2015

delgermurun commented May 28, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

delgermurun commented May 28, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arunoda commented May 28, 2015

delgermurun commented May 28, 2015

arunoda commented May 28, 2015

delgermurun commented May 29, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

delgermurun commented May 29, 2015

arunoda commented May 29, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

delgermurun commented May 29, 2015

arunoda commented Jun 2, 2015

delgermurun commented Jun 2, 2015

arunoda commented Jun 2, 2015

delgermurun commented Jun 2, 2015

arunoda commented Jun 3, 2015

delgermurun commented Jun 3, 2015

delgermurun commented Jun 3, 2015

arunoda commented Jun 3, 2015

delgermurun commented Jun 3, 2015

arunoda commented Jun 3, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arunoda commented Jun 4, 2015

delgermurun commented Jun 4, 2015

delgermurun commented Jun 4, 2015

arunoda commented Jun 4, 2015

delgermurun commented Jun 4, 2015

arunoda commented Jun 4, 2015

delgermurun commented Jun 4, 2015