Allow send additional data via meta key

[7rulnik]

@relekang @mxstbr
It should resolve #24

But I think that opportunity to pass something more complicated than strings will be cool. How we should pass arrays or objects?

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #56 into master will decrease coverage by 0.65%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #56      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   71.13%   70.47%   -0.66%     
==========================================
  Files           6        6              
  Lines          97      105       +8     
  Branches       20       21       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits           69       74       +5     
  Misses         28       28              
- Partials        0        3       +3

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/handler.js	72.5% <100%> (-0.48%)	⬇️
src/utils.js	90.9% <100%> (+2.67%)	⬆️
src/index.js	0% <0%> (-7.7%)	⬇️
src/db.js	77.77% <0%> (-5.56%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2add293...8439008. Read the comment docs.

[relekang]

Looks good 👍

[relekang]

But I think that opportunity to pass something more complicated than strings will be cool. How we should pass arrays or objects?

I am kind of thorn between this would be nice to have and it is a good thing to have the restriction.
What do you think @mxstbr? We can add it later under another param name e.g. meta_json.

If we want to support more complex data structures I think urlencoded json is a good way to go.

[mxstbr]

LGTM, let's ship this for now and then discuss about more complex stuff in an issue?

[7rulnik]

Honestly I don't think that ?meta=k1:v1,k2:v2 is a good way for passing additional data.

1. User should generate this string
2. Maximum lenght of url — 2000 symbols
3. Support meta and meta_json will be pain. 2 keys that do same things.
4. We need additional logic for parsing ?meta=k1:v1,k2:v2. It's not really hard, but it can be easier.

I think that POST is correct way for passing meta.

fetch('/users', {
  method: 'POST',
  headers: {
    'Content-Type': 'application/json'
  },
  body: JSON.stringify({
    meta: {…},
  })
})

And JSON.parse on server.

I prefer to decide how it will be before shipping something for users.

[relekang]

I agree, I am thinking that it would be great if we turned it so that get only reads and post is the way to put things into the db.

[7rulnik]

If we split get and put it would be major release, so for now we can merge this PR and release it as minor version. After this I can start splitting.

[mxstbr]

it would be great if we turned it so that get only reads

I'm not a fan of that, I quite like that GET also increments because it supports this pattern: (which is what I built micro-analytics for initially)

window.onload = () => {
  fetch(`my-analytics.com/${window.location.href}`)
    .then(data => console.log(`${data.views} views`)) 
}

I do agree that ?meta isn't the best choice though, we could just do POST to add meta data but GET still increments?

[relekang]

I do agree that ?meta isn't the best choice though, we could just do POST to add meta data but GET still increments?

👍

[relekang]

Closing this as we want to revisit without meta in GET requests. The meta-branch contains a wip version of that on top of the lerna restructure.