Records support #9
Conversation
3d320b5 to
3125f67
Compare
|
Excellent work! will dive in and review now. Let me know if you wont have time to follow up, and I can probably finish myself in that case. |
| @@ -61,3 +61,21 @@ Convert a JSON representation back into an immutable object | |||
| ### `transit.withFilter(function) => transit` | |||
|
|
|||
| Create a modified version of the transit API that deeply applies the provided filter function to all immutable collections before serialising. Can be used to exclude entries. | |||
|
|
|||
| ### `transit.withRecords([recordClasses], optionalFilterFunction) => transit` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd be tempted to leave out the filter argument, but allow withRecords(records).withFilter(filter) instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah a fluent API like that makes more sense to me as well, I just left it this way because it's how @thomasboyt implemented it. I can change it though.
|
Let me know if any of that is unclear, and feel free to disagree! 😄 |
8dc0b05 to
2dcf14b
Compare
|
Ok think I've covered everything you brought up. I'll open a PR on immutableJS for the recordName thing, but I don't think it's worth waiting on that to get this functionality merged. |
2dcf14b to
5df01c9
Compare
| @@ -61,3 +61,21 @@ Convert a JSON representation back into an immutable object | |||
| ### `transit.withFilter(function) => transit` | |||
|
|
|||
| Create a modified version of the transit API that deeply applies the provided filter function to all immutable collections before serialising. Can be used to exclude entries. | |||
|
|
|||
| ### `transit.withRecords([recordClasses])[.withFilter(function)] => transit` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do you think it would be straightforward to generalise so that these can be used in either order - and shrink down to only one place for creating the public API?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I'm sure there's a good way to do that. It's getting late here in Spain and my brain stops working so well. :P Let me think about the best way to implement this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After further consideration and a bit of experimentation I haven't found a way I'm happy with to make this work while both preserving the existing semantics and not complicating the code internally. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, just that I don't see the way to do it. 😄 Given how infrequently I suspect someone will want to both set a filter and deal with Records, and given that the current solution works just fine, I'm inclined to leave it how it is right now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No worries, I might take a crack at this myself - I think there should be a way to achieve this and end up with less code 😄
|
Nice work on this, that was fast! |
5df01c9 to
acec0f5
Compare
|
Hey, would you mind cutting a new release with this functionality? I need it available so I can make a PR for another module in my dependency chain, thanks. |
This PR adds record support as discussed in #7. It's based on the work by @thomasboyt in his fork, with a few modifications:
filtersuch as Map (covered in the tests).I think this covers everything @glenjamin asked for to merge a PR; if there's anything else necessary I'm happy to make changes!