-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 106
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
Don't mutate deepMap values #305
Conversation
Can you also explain a little more how do you do it? (Sorry, I am full in another project right now for deep review) |
e4d79e9
to
08d9809
Compare
Previously, calling setKey on a $deepMap would mutate the value in-place. This can cause various problems, for example nanostores#250 and nanostores#290. Those were both solved with workarounds, however, this solves it in a better way, by not mutating the deepMap in the first place. Some advantages of this approach: * No need for structuredClone * The oldValue passed to listeners is the same object reference as the value that was previously passed. This is how immutable stores usually work, so it will align better with expectations, cause fewer issues, and allow for new use cases, like the upcoming batching PR which needs that. * Copies were already being made at each nesting level of the key being set, they just weren't being used (so maybe this was the original intent?). Either way, that means there's no new work being done, and perf will actually improve since we no longer need to call structuredClone on oldValue. As part of this change, when a key path extends past the end of an array the result will be a sparse array rather than filling it with undefined. It would have required extra code (and slower perf) to keep the old behavior, and I don't see a good reason for it. The new behavior aligns with what JS does natively, and with other stores like SolidJS. But let me know if that's a problem.
08d9809
to
63298c7
Compare
It all happens in |
So if we change { // mutates
a: { // mutates
b: 'new value', // mutates
c: {} // copies
},
d: {} // copies
} |
Yeah, so in your example, after you call |
…es#305 Also cleans up related jsdocs
Previously, calling setKey on a $deepMap would mutate the value in-place. This can cause various problems, for example #250 and #290. Those were both solved with workarounds, however, this solves it in a better way, by not mutating the deepMap in the first place. Some advantages of this approach: * No need for structuredClone * The oldValue passed to listeners is the same object reference as the value that was previously passed. This is how immutable stores usually work, so it will align better with expectations, cause fewer issues, and allow for new use cases, like the upcoming batching PR which needs that. * Copies were already being made at each nesting level of the key being set, they just weren't being used (so maybe this was the original intent?). Either way, that means there's no new work being done, and perf will actually improve since we no longer need to call structuredClone on oldValue. As part of this change, when a key path extends past the end of an array the result will be a sparse array rather than filling it with undefined. It would have required extra code (and slower perf) to keep the old behavior, and I don't see a good reason for it. The new behavior aligns with what JS does natively, and with other stores like SolidJS. But let me know if that's a problem.
Previously, calling
setKey
on a $deepMap would mutate the value in-place. This can cause various problems, for example #250 and #290. Those were both solved with workarounds, however, this solves it in a better way, by not mutating the deepMap in the first place.Some advantages of this approach:
As part of this change, when a key path extends past the end of an array the result will be a sparse array rather than filling it with undefined. It would have required extra code (and slower perf) to keep the old behavior, and I don't see a good reason for it. The new behavior aligns with what JS does natively, and with other stores like SolidJS. But let me know if that's a problem.