After migration 31, we'll no longer want to persist messageStore.messages via redux-persist. However, we DO want to continue persisting everything in messageStore EXCEPT for messages. The blacklist property in persistConfig allows us to specify top-level keys that shouldn't be persisted. However, we aren't able to specify nested keys in blacklist. As a result, if we want to prevent nested keys from being persisted we'll need to use createTransform(...) to specify an inbound function that allows us to modify the state object before it's passed through JSON.stringify(...) and written to disk. We specify the keys for which this transformation should be executed in the whitelist property of the config object that's passed to createTransform(...).
Details
Included this transform in persistConfig and completed the migration to version: 31 without issue.
Will be more thorough and look at Redux dev tools/REHYDRATE action/etc. before landing this diff.
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rCOMM Comm
- Branch
- master
- Lint
No Lint Coverage - Unit
No Test Coverage
Event Timeline
| native/redux/persist.js | ||
|---|---|---|
| 379 | I think generally people are moving away from whitelist/blacklist to allowlist/blocklist... but I don't feel particularly strongly. It might make sense to keep the vocabulary consistent with redux-persist, but it also seems like based on their GitHub Issues they'll end up moving to allowlist/blocklist (probably not as a breaking change, but as an equivalent) at some point | |
| 380–383 | I'll give it a try and update this diff if there aren't any flow issues | |
| native/redux/persist.js | ||
|---|---|---|
| 380–383 | No issues with flow, I wonder if it's maybe too clever? Wonder if someone reading the code would grasp what's happening as quickly | |
rebase before landing
(opted for the more verbose messageStoreMessagesBlocklistTransform and "blocklist" language")
| native/redux/persist.js | ||
|---|---|---|
| 380–383 | For me destructuring function parameters is a really convenient feature, but sure, if we think it is less readable we can use something more wordy. | |