when I hit
save() on my ampersand-model the derived and children fields are posted to the api along with the props. is there a way to stop this happening? I have a projectId prop and a project is one of the model's children. I only want to send the projectId to the api on save, not the project model
Template literals doesn't come with some of the logicalutility functions that handlebars does. You will have to build your own, or use something like that project I linked where someone has done it already
This is the reason why I always join forums/irc/chats like this. People are very helpful and most of them have already done projects similar to what I'm looking for. The team I am on does not listen to me. They would rather write it from scratch. Sigh! :( Our app was delayed for 18 months because it was overly engineered by devs who claimed they know what they're doing. On the start of the project, I already told them they're making it too intelligent and I'm sure it's going to hurt us in the future. And today, we're f*ck'd up very badly and we are now slowly implementing what I suggested 18 months ago. LMAO!
*?
Quick question, is it possible to set props from the view which is calling renderCollection on the collection views themselves? I have a view which calls renderCollection on a given collection, but I need to set a prop so that I can bind to it's values on the inner collections views; I can't see a way of passing the prop to the individual item views..
@LordSyntax you can pass in values from renderCollection by using viewOptions. But if you want to keep the property in sync between the top level view and the collection views you will need to wrap that value in a model or state object. If you pass it in just as a value that the collection views have props for, the view will pick up the value but not a reference. This means a change in the parent view's value won't be reflected in the collection view. If you place your value in model or state object in the parent view and pass that in viewOptions it will be a reference to the same object and track your changes.
I will take a look and see if I can find a simpler solution. But if you want to track changes in both the parent and collection views you need to store it in state or a model. If you don't then just declare it as a prop on the collection view and pass it in with viewOptions.
Anyone know if it is possible to create a binding to a collection; I have a prop for my view of type object; which has a reference to an ampersand collection passed into it.. I want my view to bind to the collection; so that any changes to the collection trigger a custom function to run updating the UI. I'm currently using this.listenTo in an initialize method on a variety of events (e.g. add/remove/reset), but I'd rather use binding if that is possible.
I don't recommended that though because this._getCachedEventBubblingHandler is a private method and breaking changes to it might not result in a semver major bump because it is marked as private.
If you are storing it as an object type in state or session, you might consider converting it to state, you would get bubbling for free then.
Anyways, I'll post it because someone might know :)
My friend told me that when constructor is used in a function, Webpack spits out an error on the console saying Uncaught TypeError: _WEBPACK_IMPORTED_MODULE_0_ thatmodule__.a is not a constructor. He showed me the error. He said, in order to fix it, the word constructor should be replaced with initialize. The module being used and exported is ampersand-state and it's in src/profile/index.js.
import State from 'ampersand-state';
export default State.extend({......
// blah blah, code removed for clarityThen on the outer index.js(not src/profile/index.js), the code is
import Profile from 'src/profile';
export default module.exports = Profile;What are your thoughts on the constructor issue?
A commonjs import
Maybe webpack is trying to treat that as an es6 class when it isn't
I saw the error when I was playing around, but once I used the correct export syntax it went away.
good morning @RickButler :) that's what I see in our code :worried:
let me double check to make sure i'm telling the truth
yes it's what I see
the dev even added a comment before it saying "will both work in es6 and commonjs"
if you tried to use that in an environment that onyl understood commonjs style require module.export, then the import wouldn't work...
going back to the error I posted regarding constructor, what are your thoughts? I'm going to update my code copy to see the changes my teammate made. He said it fixes the error
however, i'm worried about what's been happening since looks like the fixes here are all hackish
i'll take a look at it deeper
i'll put a breakpoint