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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: add unregister nano contract saga effect [10] #457
feat: add unregister nano contract saga effect [10] #457
Changes from all commits
083f44e
b8edb4e
36172d9
3ccbcf9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Don't you need to set the new object to
STORE
?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.
No, I don't. There aren't a new object to set,
contracts
is a reference to the object, and we only need remove an entry from this object to set it right. Unless we want to work with immutable objects, which is not the case here. TheunregisterToken
method sets theregisterTokens
object after delete, but this operation is redundant.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 understand that the STORE allows us to mutate its stored object directly, but I don't like the idea of potentially multiple places mutating the object directly, I think we should indeed use immutable objects
My suggestion is that we avoid mutating the object in this PR, use
STORE.setItem
to store it even though it's redundant and open a KTLO to return immutable objects in theStorage
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.
Yes, I agree we should do it.
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.
Ok. I will open a PR. However, to achieve immutability we need more than just use the spread operator.
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 understand, we can discuss this in the KTLO, but at the very least we should return a new instance of the object, to prevent the stored object from being mutated by the api consumer