fix(component-store): fix memoization not working when passing selectors directly to select #3356
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This makes selectors created with
createSelector
usable withComponentStore.select
which looks like it should work, but would previously result in the selector getting recomputed each time.
When select method is called with a single argument, the projector function was being passed directly to
map
, which invokes its callback with an extraindex
argument. This is basically the same problem as the JS gotcha where[1,2,3].map(parseInt)
returns[1, NaN, NaN]
.Because the value of
index
is different each time, the memoized selector would get invalidated even if the actual state remained exactly the same.PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Given
passing it to a component store directly
results in the selector being re-computed on each store update, even if the state does not actually change.
The memoization works fine again if the selector is wrapped inside an extra function:
What is the new behavior?
Both usages of
select()
shown above should now work the same way.Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information