You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Thanks for this library, the concept and the library itself have been of great help to us.
As mentioned by README dissoc shouldn't be used on component records as it will change the record into a map. It is easy to forget to tell this to new component users or just to forget it in general though. This results in very unexpected results sometimes. As far as I know a component should never "change" types during a start/stop cycle. Do you think it would make sense to add assertions for unexpected type changes after stop and start? This would catch the dissoc accidents I believe.
Cheers,
Jeroen
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I have never had any reason for a component to change its type after start, but there is nothing about 'component' which depends on this. It is possible that someone will come up with a use case for component records that return different types from start. It would be an artificial limitation on the power of 'component' to forbid this.
Hi Stuart,
Thanks for this library, the concept and the library itself have been of great help to us.
As mentioned by README
dissoc
shouldn't be used on component records as it will change the record into a map. It is easy to forget to tell this to new component users or just to forget it in general though. This results in very unexpected results sometimes. As far as I know a component should never "change" types during a start/stop cycle. Do you think it would make sense to add assertions for unexpected type changes after stop and start? This would catch thedissoc
accidents I believe.Cheers,
Jeroen
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: