-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
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
Patterns: receive intermediate responses while unbound request is resolving #66713
Merged
+61
−16
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | ||
export const RECEIVE_INTERMEDIATE_RESULTS = Symbol( | ||
'RECEIVE_INTERMEDIATE_RESULTS' | ||
); |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I actually can see this as being useful as a public API. That said, I wonder about the impact on the "resolution state" and things like that.
The other thing I'm wondering, is that basically this means that the "pagination" logic for "-1" has moved within the resolver, so there's a potential to actually remove the code that is responsible for this in
apiFetch
and just reuse the same code here. The only different being that the action to "fill" the state won't be call until the end ifRECEIVE_INTERMEDIATE_RESULTS
is false.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could. I also saw that the resolver is anyway already dependent on knowledge of WP Total Pages etc., seen in trunk already 20 lines below. Do you think we should do it here or try separately?
Regarding the resolution state, I guess that's one thing to talk about before making this public. I think it's fine to resolve only after all requests are completed. It does not prevent components from selecting the unresolved state.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd say separately.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't mind separate but I feel like we can follow-up on this rather than leave it as nice to improve later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@youknowriad Well, can we remove it from api-fetch though? We'd break back compat? Not all -1 requests necessarily go through this resolver.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point :) maybe we can deprecate, WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could I guess. I'll look into it tomorrow. In the meantime, I'll merge this PR so the performance problem is addressed.