feature/feat-pinia-auth-store | pinia 6/9 #2398
No reviewers
Labels
No Label
area/internal-code
changes requested
confirmed
dependencies
duplicate
good first issue
help wanted
hosting
invalid
kind/bug
kind/feature
question
wontfix
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
3 Participants
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: vikunja/frontend#2398
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "dpschen/frontend:feature/feat-pinia-auth-store"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
67ffd1094b
to0c935d4e8d
0c935d4e8d
to1dc6534912
1dc6534912
to4b6c12ef2f
Hi dpschen!
Thank you for creating a PR!
I've deployed the changes of this PR on a preview environment under this URL: https://2398-feature-feat-pinia-auth-store--vikunja-frontend-preview.netlify.app
You can use this url to view the changes live and test them out.
You will need to manually connect this to an api running somehwere. The easiest to use is https://try.vikunja.io/.
Have a nice day!
4b6c12ef2f
to10af6df364
10af6df364
to505501045d
505501045d
toe49e937ab3
e49e937ab3
to03948d31c6
03948d31c6
todbb428bd7c
dbb428bd7c
to7718496895
I didn't yet find out why this doesn't work.
7718496895
to69342d4230
69342d4230
to5ce956502d
Still wip?
1fde98e333
to696206b22d
f81a0edf2e
tof3762fc1a6
bf66ea21b5
to9f01c4e65d
WIP: feature/feat-pinia-auth-store | pinia 6/9to feature/feat-pinia-auth-store | pinia 6/9@ -46,2 +48,2 @@
const authUser = computed(() => store.getters['auth/authUser'])
const authLinkShare = computed(() => store.getters['auth/authLinkShare'])
const authUser = computed(() => authStore.authUser)
const authLinkShare = computed(() => authStore.authLinkShare)
Don't we need to call that function?
No, that would only be necessary if the getter would return a function that we want to call.
@ -17,2 +21,2 @@
required: true,
type: Object,
type: Object as PropType<IUser>,
required: true,
Please fix the indention here.
Done
@ -124,8 +124,10 @@ async function updateDueDate() {
}
// FIXME: direct prop manipulation
Is that still true?
I changed the watcher of the modelValue now so that we create a shallow copy of the task. Maybe a deep copy would be even better here.
My reasoning here is:
If the modelValue is provided by a value that is bound from store e.g. via a getter we the task would have been a direct reference to that. Now that we create a shallow copy this shouldn't be the case anymore.
Makes sense!