Because Arbor nodes are proxies around data and even though for instances of Arbor, the underlying data is mutable the proxies wrapping nodes in the OST (observable state tree) get "refreshed" every time the underlying data is mutated. This is done so that we can easily compute diffs on the OST, by simply comparing the identity of nodes, e.g. ===.
However, this behavior can create some unexpected behavior. For instance, take the following store holding an array of todos:
const store = new Arbor([
{ text: "todo 1" },
{ text: "todo 2" },
])
Should we get a reference of say, todo 1 and mutate it like so:
const todo1 = store.state[0]
todo1.text = "todo 1 updated"
Then the identity of the variable todo1 will no longer be the same as store.state[0] since that node in the OST will be refreshed to indicate it has been mutated, so the following will be false:
todo1 === store.state[0]
=> false
Similarly, Array#includes would return unexpected results, for example:
store.state.includes(todo1)
=> false
Even though todo1 points to something valid within the OST.
I believe we can provide a better DX if we extend Array#includes as part of the overwrites in ArrayNodeHandler so that it automatically compares the Seed value of the values being compared, this would enabled users to rely on Array#includes for this type of check.
Prototype
export class ArrayNodeHandler<T extends object = object> extends NodeHandler<
T[]
> {
...
includes(value: T) {
for (const item of this) {
if (Seed.from(item) === Seed.from(value)) return true
}
return false
}
...
}
Because Arbor nodes are proxies around data and even though for instances of
Arbor, the underlying data is mutable the proxies wrapping nodes in the OST (observable state tree) get "refreshed" every time the underlying data is mutated. This is done so that we can easily compute diffs on the OST, by simply comparing the identity of nodes, e.g.===.However, this behavior can create some unexpected behavior. For instance, take the following store holding an array of todos:
Should we get a reference of say,
todo 1and mutate it like so:Then the identity of the variable
todo1will no longer be the same asstore.state[0]since that node in the OST will be refreshed to indicate it has been mutated, so the following will be false:Similarly,
Array#includeswould return unexpected results, for example:Even though
todo1points to something valid within the OST.I believe we can provide a better DX if we extend
Array#includesas part of the overwrites inArrayNodeHandlerso that it automatically compares theSeedvalue of the values being compared, this would enabled users to rely onArray#includesfor this type of check.Prototype