Filtered actions are inconsistent when followed by unrelated action dispatches

[mrcoles]

See this gist.

I noticed that filtered actions in redux-undo behave inconsistently when followed by actions that do not affect the state (tested in the 1.0.0 beta 9.9.7).

Run the example code in this gist via:

yarn install
yarn start

and then open the server it starts and view the developer JS console.

The action TOGGLE_FOO is supposed to get filtered. However, by dispatching the __DOES_NOT_CHANGE_STATE__ action, the state does actually change—it seems that _latestUnfiltered updates. Then after dispatching TOGGLE_BAR followed by an undo, it only undos the TOGGLE_BAR and we are left with the TOGGLE_FOO as if it were not filtered.

As a contrast, if you comment out the does not change state action dispatch, the single undo undoes both the TOGGLE_BAR and TOGGLE_FOO.

[HarelM]

I have a similar issue that can be seen here:
https://stackblitz.com/edit/angular-redux-undo-decorator-avn28p?file=src%2Fapp%2Fapp.component.ts
steps to reproduce:

1. click on advance/regular - gets filtered and undo button does not get enabled - as it should.
2. click on other which changes another part of the state and undo button becomes enabled.

full steps to reproduce:

1. use a filtered action
2. change part of the state that is not undoable
3. the past of the undoable part of the state changes.

@mrcoles did you find a work around for this?

[HarelM]

If anyone is reading this, seems like using includeAction(...) instead of excludeAction(...) (with the proper actions of course) allows to work around this issue.

[nmay231]

This is the expected behavior. See #173.

As an example, imagine the unfiltered __DOES_NOT_CHANGE_STATE__ was instead a SET_BAR_TO_FALSE. This would leave present unchanged ({foo: true, bar: false} => {foo: true, bar: false}), but you would want to record this to history since the action was unfiltered.

As @HarelM mentioned, you should use a whitelist filter like includeAction(...) to get your desired result.