Question: Example of Nested Reducers w/ Split Actions

[jpgilchrist]

I was looking through the notes/documentation and I want to create a nested reducer for a complex application. I would like to have the actions split into separate, maintainable files for easier organization. I see in the docs for the NestedReducerBuilder you allude to BasActionNames and ChildActionNames, but I don't see how they all get connected together as your Store is created with something like

  final store = new Store<AppState, AppStateBuilder, AppActions>(
    appStateReducerBuilder.build(),
    new AppState(),
    new AppActions(),
    middleware: []
  );

which only includes the AppActions.

[davidmarne]

Shoot, yea those docs are missing some context around the actions. In the example you are alluding to consider ChildActions and BaseActions to be defined as so:

// BaseActions is the main action class that contains
// all actions for your store. It is passed to the store at
// instantiation. It contains an action dispatcher and a reference
// to an instance of ChildActions.
abstract class BaseActions extends ReduxActions {
  BaseActions._();
  factory BaseActions() => new _$BaseActions();

  ActionDispatcher<Null> get baseAction;
  ChildActions get child;
}

// ChildActions contains an action dispatcher
abstract class ChildActions extends ReduxActions {
  ChildActions._();
  factory ChildActions() => new _$ChildActions();

  ActionDispatcher<Null> get childAction;
}

As you can see, ChildActions is actually a field on BaseActions, meaning those child actions can be dispatched given an instance of BaseActions itself.

final store = new Store<AppState, AppStateBuilder, AppActions>(
    appStateReducerBuilder.build(),
    new AppState(),
    new BaseActions(),
    middleware: []
  );

store.actions.baseAction();
store.actions.child.childAction();

The ActionNames classes are defined separately for BaseActions and ChildActions, and do not have references to each other at all.

[jpgilchrist]

Interesting... so when you use ActionNames in your examples the code still knows how to access that name despite not having a relationship established?