Skip to content
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

Update custom store readme to use thunks instead of controls #67006

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 19, 2024

Conversation

SantosGuillamot
Copy link
Contributor

What?

Update the custom store explanation to use thunks instead of controls.

Why?

If I am not mistaken, now that thunks are supported, it should be the recommended way of handling these use cases as explained here.

How?

I just updated the code examples in the readme.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 14, 2024

The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the props-bot label.

If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message.

Co-authored-by: SantosGuillamot <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: youknowriad <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: gziolo <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Mamaduka <[email protected]>

To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook.

Comment on lines 129 to 131
A **control** defines the execution flow behavior associated with a specific action type. This can be particularly useful in implementing asynchronous data flows for your store. By defining your action creator or resolvers as a generator which yields specific controlled action types, the execution will proceed as defined by the control handler.

The `controls` option should be passed as an object where each key is the name of the action type to act upon, the value a function which receives the original action object. It should returns either a promise which is to resolve when evaluation of the action should continue, or a value. The value or resolved promise value is assigned on the return value of the yield assignment. If the control handler returns undefined, the execution is not continued.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure what to do with the controls section. Should it be refactored? Removed? I am not familiar with how controls are used.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we hide it in a "details" kind of? and mark it as "deprecated"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've tried that in this commit: 6f24f40?short_path=f874ff4#diff-f874ff4a9c60876a3d01ac27950807424eead31c2cd914daa34136108bd03e0f. Let me know if that's not what you had in mind. I am not sure if it needs to be changed somewhere else.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that's basically what I had in mind. I wonder if will translate properly to the block editor handbook when published.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I saw that the Interactivity API readmes have a bunch of <details> (example) and they seem to look fine in the block editor handbook (example). Although it's true in this case I'm adding different elements.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It makes perfect sense to mark the controls as deprecated 👍🏻

@@ -262,7 +253,7 @@ The data module shares many of the same [core principles](https://redux.js.org/i

The [higher-order components](#higher-order-components) were created to complement this distinction. The intention with splitting `withSelect` and `withDispatch` — where in React Redux they are combined under `connect` as `mapStateToProps` and `mapDispatchToProps` arguments — is to more accurately reflect that dispatch is not dependent upon a subscription to state changes, and to allow for state-derived values to be used in `withDispatch` (via [higher-order component composition](https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/tree/HEAD/packages/compose/README.md)).

The data module also has built-in solutions for handling asynchronous side-effects, through [resolvers](#resolvers) and [controls](#controls). These differ slightly from [standard redux async solutions](https://redux.js.org/advanced/async-actions) like [`redux-thunk`](https://github.com/gaearon/redux-thunk) or [`redux-saga`](https://redux-saga.js.org/).
The data module also has built-in solutions for handling asynchronous side-effects, through [resolvers](#resolvers) and [thunks](https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/blob/trunk/docs/how-to-guides/thunks.md#thunks-can-be-async). These differ slightly from [standard redux async solutions](https://redux.js.org/advanced/async-actions) like [`redux-thunk`](https://github.com/gaearon/redux-thunk) or [`redux-saga`](https://redux-saga.js.org/).
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we update this sentence or does it still apply?

These differ slightly from standard redux async solutions like redux-thunk or redux-saga.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jsnajdr might know the answer. I don't think it's a blocker for merging, though.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 14, 2024

Flaky tests detected in 6f24f40.
Some tests passed with failed attempts. The failures may not be related to this commit but are still reported for visibility. See the documentation for more information.

🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/11844302508
📝 Reported issues:

@SantosGuillamot SantosGuillamot marked this pull request as draft November 14, 2024 14:39
Copy link
Contributor

@youknowriad youknowriad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I didn't test the example but it looks good at first sight.

@SantosGuillamot SantosGuillamot marked this pull request as ready for review November 14, 2024 20:14
Copy link
Member

@gziolo gziolo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I didn't test the example but it looks good at first sight.

Yes, it's difficult to test as the endpoint doesn't exist. There are some unit tests with examples like the following that I used for comparison:

const store = createReduxStore( 'test', {
reducer: ( state = {}, action ) => {
switch ( action.type ) {
case 'RECEIVE':
return { ...state, [ action.endpoint ]: action.data };
default:
return state;
}
},
selectors: {
getData: ( state, endpoint ) => state[ endpoint ],
},
resolvers: {
getData:
( endpoint ) =>
async ( { dispatch } ) => {
const delay = endpoint === 'slow' ? 30 : 10;
await new Promise( ( r ) =>
setTimeout( () => r(), delay )
);
dispatch( {
type: 'RECEIVE',
endpoint,
data: endpoint,
} );
},
},
} );

Overall, it's a good improvement that promotes thunks.

@gziolo gziolo added the [Package] Data /packages/data label Nov 15, 2024
@Mamaduka
Copy link
Member

Yes, it's difficult to test as the endpoint doesn't exist.

I think that's always been a barrier for consumers who wanted to get started with data stores. The primary example should be copy-pastable into plugin files to get you started.

We could follow up on this separately. Maybe @ryanwelcher has some ideas :)

@SantosGuillamot SantosGuillamot merged commit 32fe48c into trunk Nov 19, 2024
74 of 75 checks passed
@SantosGuillamot SantosGuillamot deleted the update/use-thunks-in-custom-store-readme branch November 19, 2024 08:34
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the Gutenberg 19.8 milestone Nov 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[Package] Data /packages/data [Type] Developer Documentation Documentation for developers
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants