-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 405
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
Cancelable Actions Decorator Option #191
Comments
PS. You would probably have to support the option of "cancelable" or "cancellable" for US or UK english spelling (See here). |
@markwhitfeld - any other thoughts? You had some interesting ideas here. |
There is another issue about this open
…On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 9:43 AM Austin ***@***.***> wrote:
@markwhitfeld <https://github.com/markwhitfeld> - any other thoughts? You
had some interesting ideas here.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#191 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGQnJe8NtvMvmT2OUxI-m_MaCSMbSD3Oks5tjOTugaJpZM4S_YC2>
.
|
see #192 |
@amcdnl Small question here. Is there a reason we need to explicitly define whether it is cancelable? Was thinking it might be simpler to have it implicit. |
@greycloak - u only want this for typeaheads, saves should always happen. |
Just to add to the mix, I think that the option name of 'cancelable' is maybe a bit ambiguous regarding its impact and behavior. Maybe @greycloak was asking about it because it was unclear...? In my opinon the One subtle issue I have with the My vote is for PS. I think we would also have to create a |
@amcdnl @markwhitfeld We have an action that will kick off a chain of other actions depending on the success of the previous. My assumption was that we need to use a switchMap to cancel the current action. And then we can just subscribe to the original dispatch and will be notified when it finishes the whole chain or fails along the way. The problem is that we see two emits on the first success action and 4 emits on the 2nd. My thought was that this enhancement for 2.1 was related to that. Or it's also possible we're just using ngxs or rxjs wrong. |
Implemented in 2.1.0-beta.0 using |
Hi @amcdnl and @deebloo Is it still possible to review the option name? |
@deebloo - he liked that one, i'm indifferent. |
@deebloo I looked at your doc comment where you describe the I think I prefer |
will do. I personally wanted it to be called "cancelPrevious". The inline comment should also be updated since it is canceling previous observables not necessarily previous requests. |
@amcdnl Whatever it is you changed, you fixed our observable emit permutations issue. Thanks! Awesome library. Boilerplate hell no more. |
Add the ability to cancel previously queued actions via a API like this:
eliminating the need for doing this:
Ref: #143
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: