-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.3k
feat: Add queryKey to QueryObserverResult #2690
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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.
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.
not sure I understand that. Why would we be interested in the key of the previous query?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Without this we lost some memoization because the queryKey array was new each time the hook was called.
Said another way:
prevQueryResult.queryKey !== query.queryKey
(but they are shallow equal).The only reason I caught that was because a test failed.
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.
Is it important to keep referential stability between queryKeys? If yes, we should likely triple equal compare the query hashes.
What I don’t understand is how this can work with changing keys. For example: having
['todos', id]
as key and id transitions from 1 to 2. The previous key would be['todos', 1]
and the new one is['todos', 2]
- but with the logic above we would get the old, wrong key returned, wouldn’t we..?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.
I need to read the code a little more closely, but it's my understanding that each time createResult on a QueryObserver is called, it's always the same "query" (that is, a unique queryKey [hash]) but the result is being updated with new information (retry, success, error, the hook being called again with no update, etc). Under this understanding, changed keys would result in two instances of a QueryObserver (one for id #1 and another for id #2 in your example above). Are QueryObservers pooled in the way you're suggesting, or is there one QueryObserver per unique queryHash?
I'm going to go read the code again and I'll check back.
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.
So I think this needs to change to:
const queryKey = queryChange ? query.queryKey : prevQuery.queryKey
but this is causing a test failure that I'm going to need to figure out. Help would be great. I think it has to do with the shallow result checking in updateResult ~L623 since the queryKey is an array not a primitive like everything else.