Feat reinitialize

[ghost]

Description

This PR resolves #58 which is about adding the reinitialize method.

Breaking changes

N\A

Checklist

Make sure you check all the boxes. You can omit items that are not applicable.

• Implementation for both <Async> and useAsync()
• Added / updated the unit tests
• Added / updated the documentation
• Updated the PropTypes
• Updated the TypeScript type definitions

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #62 into master will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #62      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.69%   98.71%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files           9        9              
  Lines         691      703      +12     
  Branches      162      169       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits          682      694      +12     
  Misses          9        9

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/react-async/src/propTypes.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
packages/react-async/src/Async.js	99.28% <100%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
packages/react-async/src/useAsync.js	97.89% <100%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
packages/react-async/src/reducer.js	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 44ad0f8...a6cea6a. Read the comment docs.

[ghengeveld]

Nice work, and thanks for the effort! 👍
I have just a couple of notes. Thanks for including tests, that's very helpful.

[ghengeveld]

@all-contributors please add @noelyoo for code, ideas

[allcontributors]

@ghengeveld

I've put up a pull request to add @noelyoo! 🎉

[maximenathan]

Hello

I would like to know why this PR was closed?
The Issue 58 doesn't explain it very well.
Thank you!

[ghengeveld]

Hi @maximenathan. The reason this was closed is because the implementation that @neutiyoo came up with did not match the mental model of reinitializing the component as if it was destroyed and recreated. After some discussion in this thread he decided it would be best not to merge this PR because it would only complicate the library while there's an alternative solution available (for his use case at least).

If you are in need of this feature, can you explain your use case for it? If there's a good use case without simple enough workaround then I'm happy to add the feature.

[maximenathan]

Hi @ghengeveld thanks for your quick response and sorry for the delay
I found a workaround. I will add more information if it gets more tricky
Thank you for your work! :)