is there anything in the om next query syntax that doesn't translate to graphql?

im wondering whether to write my own parser, or translate the query into graphql where a number of backend implementations already exist

Anyone else changing the :compassus/route in their merge function? Or is that a terrible idea?

Attempting to change routes after a successful remote mutation (but not if there was a problem)

@jonsmock I think @danielstockton was doing it at some point

I don't think that it would cause any complications

Ok, sort of sanity checking - thanks!

let me know if it does

Looks like it is working, and it does trigger a re-query for that new route

I did try it but unsuccessfully

it seemed to have no effect

(btw, sorry :compassus.core/route not :compassus/route)

correction, it's set-route that didn't work

I must be doing something else incorrectly. It triggers a query to my new route's query, which triggers a remote read

And the remote read doesn't happen for some reason hmm

merging c.core/route worked I think

Ok maybe a dumb question, how do ya'll debug a remote read not happening?

Not sure where to hook in to test or where to break that apart (i.e. Stu's scientific method talk)

This is sometimes something I struggle with that I haven't completely figured out, probably something basic I'm forgetting

To recap: parsing happens with target nil and parser returns :remote true, and then I never see the parser called again with the remote target

@jonsmock Om Next won't make any remote calls in merge

An no query sent to remote either

Oh maybe I'm missing when this happens. Here's my mental model now

1. merge changes compassus route, 2. om notices and triggers query for new root component, 3. parser gets called with query and returns {:remote true}

what you're missing is: the parser either gets called with target set to nil or to a remote name

I assume 2 happens after the merge changes app state

whenever you transact!, the parser is called twice. Only when target is non-nil it goes and sees what's in the :remote key that you return

but in merge, the parser is only called once, with target set to nil

this is by design, or you could end up in an endless remote loop

Ok, so #3 is happening as part of the merge?

yes and no

#3 happens as part of the reconciliation phase

I figured the merge was "completed" and then #2 happened

this occurs because merge queues something to be reconciliated

Ah

so it's effectively after merge

but because merge wanted it to happen

Gotcha

So #3 will happen with target set to nil, and it won't notice the :remote true if I return it

exactly

Gotcha hmm

the :remote key is just ignored (because the parser was called with a nil target)

if you need to perform a new remote read, you can probably use set-route!

that'll call transact! and go remote

I assume it only happens in the successful case

I assume I don't do that from within the merge, though, or is that what you're suggesting?

Yeah, only on success, right

I suppose you can do that from within

The other thing I can think of is to have a channel that merge puts something in on success

Not sure if that's too hacky

you probably need to be careful about the heuristic you use to check when that needs to happen

sounds hacky

using the componentDidUpdate React lifecycle hook to do a transaction would probably be less hacky

keep in mind that you can also transact! a read

(om/transact! this [:some-key-to-read])

I see - I was just about to ask if my merge assumption was correct (i.e. that merge is the only thing that can notice that a successful response came back)

But I think you're suggesting that the original component's componentDidUpdate watches for the successful response to be merged

And does the route change mutation

I can resay that in clearer terms if that didn't make sense

you understood correctly 🙂

Awesome, thanks

That makes a lot more sense

consider componentWillUpdate too

Puts the control back into the component

and work with the one that feels best

Cool - thanks for explaining that all to me!

Awesome seeing you at the Conj too

Hope you had fun

no problem, and likewise!