-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
refactor(svelte-query): specify StoreOrVal options in function signature #7453
refactor(svelte-query): specify StoreOrVal options in function signature #7453
Conversation
☁️ Nx Cloud ReportCI is running/has finished running commands for commit 58d005b. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights. 📂 See all runs for this CI Pipeline Execution ✅ Successfully ran 2 targetsSent with 💌 from NxCloud. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #7453 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 44.46% 90.74% +46.28%
===========================================
Files 185 18 -167
Lines 7049 162 -6887
Branches 1549 32 -1517
===========================================
- Hits 3134 147 -2987
+ Misses 3552 12 -3540
+ Partials 363 3 -360
|
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.
Thanks @ap0nia !
Summary
Expose the
CreateMutationOptions
as a regular object, and wrap it withStoreOrVal
in thecreateMutation
function signature.Reasoning
Aside from being inconvenient if I wanted to refer to the unwrapped mutation options object, it seems to be inconsistent with the other type definitions for query options?
createQuery
,createInfiniteQuery
both haveStoreOrVal
wrapped around their options in their function signature, and the exposed type for options is just an object.