Fork me on GitHub

If I want to use fulcro RAD only for the html5 history support, should I be creating a base fulcro app, or a fulcro rad app?

Jakub Holý (HolyJak)18:02:10

Is think fulcro is good enough


thanks 🙂


IMO you should always have RAD be in your deps…use the parts of it that are convenient. Having support for quick ways to stand up support forms/reports for your own backoffice use is just super handy. It’s all just extras on top of fulcro


Yea it has some great tools in there. A lot of it isn't relevant in my case because I'm doing really custom storage stuff, specifically with git and raw files, but RAD has a lot more than just storage adapters available.

Jakub Holý (HolyJak)07:02:24

That sounds intriguing :)


If it works it surely will be 🙂


The storage adapters are not at all needed to use forms/reports…that simply requires a network API that can query/save, and the save is nicely generalized.


Yea looking at the docs I think I could write my own save/delete middleware and leverage more of rad than I originally thought.


Seems the only difference is some csrf token stuff and a default remote, which I don't need


Hello again. I'm noticing lots of uism warnings of the form Attempt to get an ASM path :some/path for a state machine that is not in Fulcro state. simply by using state machines. I've followed the instructions to no avail. I even receive these warnings without mounting my this a known thing?


> Note: As of Fulcro 3.5.6, you are likely to get the Attempt to get an ASM path…​ error for the router because dr/initialize! is asynchronous and does not finish before the dr/change-route! call. You can safely ignore it.

❤️ 1

Ah thank you!


Seems it's a known thing then


Although I can make this happen even without using the dynamic router, so it seems to be something within the state machines themselves that's spewing warnings.


YW. That's come up a few times. I'm on my way out right now but I'll add a note about it in the Fulcro book next time I get around to editing it.


If it's not that noted issue then I'm not sure what the cause is :man-shrugging:


I have a hunch they're related


Seems I can create an empty state machine definition and use uism/begin! during initialization and still receive the warnings, even with everything else commented out. Something inside the begin! call isn't happy.

Jakub Holý (HolyJak)21:02:13

Could be the same problem as with routing that it tries to access the state before it was initialized...


Yea I'm guessing they're related