add atomWithQuery.ts #43
Conversation
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit a670cd3:
|
| get: Getter | ||
| ) => QueryObserverOptions<TQueryFnData, TError, TData, TQueryData, TQueryKey>, | ||
| getQueryClient: (get: Getter) => QueryClient = (get) => get(queryClientAtom) | ||
| ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would be the return type? Can you explicitly type it? (For now, I don't care the impl below.)
|
Thanks for working on it. |
|
I've looked at this a lot more the last couple of days to understand the current implementation. Also looked at jotai-urql to understand the overhaul. I think that's going to be a good frame of reference to understand the motivation and possibly how to achieve it. So far what I got is, we want to keep the api same as @tanstack/react-query. We want to leverage @tanstack/query-core to expose functionality rather than implementing it. Let me know if I'm missing the point. I'll be looking at this in the next week. Will reach out in the discord if necessary. |
|
Looking forward to it. |
The intention of this PR is for feedback and to guage if this is what is meant by 'overhaul'
I was looking at #42 . I looked at jotai-urql and it looks the the overhaul is to keep the api the same as what urql does?
urql's useQuery returns [data, reexecuteQuery] and so does jotai-urql.
If that's the intention, is this PR inline with what you have in mind for jotai-tanstack-query?
I haven't added things like observerCacheAtom because I haven't fully gone through these patterns. Just wanted to get thoughts on the direction before putting more effort.