Throw helpful error when router reducer not mounted under "router" #175
Conversation
src/selectors.js
Outdated
| const getAction = state => toJS(getIn(state, ['router', 'action'])) | ||
| const { get, toJS } = structure | ||
| const getRouter = state => { | ||
| const router = toJS(get(state, 'router')) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we just use getIn(state, 'router') here? So, we don't need to create addition get.
src/selectors.js
Outdated
| @@ -1,9 +1,15 @@ | |||
| import { matchPath } from "react-router" | |||
| import isObject from 'lodash/isObject' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
isObject is quite simple, so, we can define isObject here and don't need to maintain external dependency.
const isObject = (value) => (value != null && (typeof value === 'object' || typeof value === 'function'))
|
@supasate Hey! Sorry been super busy. Doing this right now |
src/selectors.js
Outdated
| return router | ||
| } | ||
| const getLocation = state => toJS(_getLocation(getRouter(state))) | ||
| const getAction = state => toJS(_getAction(getRouter(state))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems weird to me to be exporting these selectors always wrapped in toJS, is this something we could move somewhere immutable/seamless-immutable specific?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer keeping it here for backward compatibility. By the way, _getLocation under getLocation seems redundant to me. getIn(getRouter(state), ['location']) seems to be more straightforward.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah that's fine, was just trying to eliminate duplication but I'll change it
- Use getIn instead of get - Use getRouter and getLocation in ConnectedRouter - Remove dependency on lodash/isObject
mattvague
force-pushed
the
174-router-key-error
branch
from
9ed9c38
to
0c2e818
Compare
src/selectors.js
Outdated
| const getAction = state => toJS(getIn(state, ['router', 'action'])) | ||
|
|
||
| const _getLocation = state => getIn(state, ['location']) | ||
| const _getAction = state => getIn(state, ['action']) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we don't need this because it doesn't do anything beside getting a key at only one level depth.
src/selectors.js
Outdated
|
|
||
| const _getLocation = state => getIn(state, ['location']) | ||
| const _getAction = state => getIn(state, ['action']) | ||
| const isRouter = (value) => value != null && typeof value === 'object' && _getLocation(value) && _getAction(value) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@supasate Do you think there's value in doing this check to make sure the right object shape is mounted?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. I think it's good to check :)
Get rid of inner fucnctions
|
@supasate Addressed your comments |
test/selectors.test.js
Outdated
| it("throws helpful error", () => { | ||
| store.dispatch(push('/')) | ||
| const state = store.getState() | ||
| expect(() => getLocation(state)).toThrowError('ould not find router reducer in state tree, it must be mounted under "router"') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: typo. Could. Hmm..why did the test pass?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Found that Jest uses RegExp to test. So, if we pass a string, it will check if the input contains this specified substring or not (https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/master/packages/expect/src/toThrowMatchers.js#L54).
So, let's use
toThrowError(/^Could not find router reducer in state tree, it must be mounted under "router"$/)for both test cases.
|
Thanks for working on this! |
#174