Structuring reducers page #1930

markerikson · 2016-09-04T23:23:24Z

Initial content review for #1784 . Please give feedback on content, formatting, structure, and ordering of topics. Current content is a first draft, and I expect I'll need to make numerous changes before it's ready to merge.

Note that a _lot_ of this content duplicates the existing "Reducers" doc page, which bothers me, but we'll work that out later.

Really emphasize the prerequisites

Fixes a typo

ellbee · 2016-09-11T16:59:25Z

docs/recipes/reducers/00-PrerequisiteConcepts.md

+
+**Key Concepts**:
+
+- Splitting relational/nested data up into separate tables


I don't think it it clear what "tables" refers to here. Am I right that this item means that the reader should understand database normalization?

Yep, since that is the suggested structure for organizing nested/relational data in a Redux store.

(Also, thanks for taking the time to review this!)

No problem! Databases haven't been mentioned yet in this doc is all.

See the "Normalizing data" pages :)

Sorry, I mean that from the point of view of someone reading this doc for the first time there has been no mention of databases by the time they get to this mention of tables. I was just wondering if people are going to be like "huh, what's a JavaScript table?". I mean, they won't but they might not jump to database tables immediately either. I dunno, the more I talk about it the less important it seems 😄

Am I right that this item means that the reader should understand database normalization?

I asked this because I wasn't clear if you were saying that a reader would have to specifically understand database normalization to be able to read the Normalizing Data section. Having read that section now, I am not sure they do. In fact, I am not sure that a reader has to understand any of the concepts listed as prerequisites for Normalizing Data prior to reading it, they are thoroughly explained in the section itself.

Yeah, my first attempt at writing a couple of these sections, I found myself totally trying to explain concepts like "immutable data" from the ground up, and realized I was totally wasting effort re-explaining stuff that was better written and explained elsewhere. I did do some explanation of normalization concepts and terms in those pages, but didn't go fully in depth.

Any suggestions for better handling the "prereqs" aspect? Some way to better tie it in to the rest of the writing?

I asked this because I wasn't clear if you were saying that a reader would have to specifically understand database normalization to be able to read the Normalizing Data section.

Interesting related discussion at choojs/choo#252 (comment). In particular:

At first blush, the idea of "importing" relations or graph structures, wholesale, kind of turns my stomach. Either would bring with it a whole mound of concepts dwarfing all the other fundamental primitives in choo combined. "If you wish to make a choo app from scratch, you must first understand relational theory?"

ellbee · 2016-09-11T17:29:21Z

@markerikson I'm about 2/3rds of the way through taking notes on these. I agree with @jimbolla that some kind of executive summary might be useful to make sure the key ideas stand out.

One consistent nitpick I've noticed is that there are often 2 spaces after full stops, while the other docs use a single space.

markerikson · 2016-09-11T17:32:25Z

One consistent nitpick I've noticed is that there are often 2 spaces after full stops, while the other docs use a single space.

Bah. So sue me for being old-school - I learned typing from a DOS program that taught that :)

But yeah, I figured there'd be formatting stuff I'd have to change. The code snippets probably need to change spacing from four spaces to two spaces as well, or something like that.

some kind of executive summary might be useful to make sure the key ideas stand out.

Hmm. Per-page, or for the section as a whole? Any suggestions?

ellbee · 2016-09-11T21:26:44Z

Bah. So sue me for being old-school - I learned typing from a DOS program that taught that :)

😄

But yeah, I figured there'd be formatting stuff I'd have to change. The code snippets probably need to change spacing from four spaces to two spaces as well, or something like that.

I guess the exact format of the code snippets is a bit up in the air until our new lint rules (airbnb?) are decided on.

some kind of executive summary might be useful to make sure the key ideas stand out.

Hmm. Per-page, or for the section as a whole? Any suggestions?

Line 74 of Basic Reducer Structure is an example to consider. IMO the line in bold is a key idea in the "Basic State Shape" section, but it comes 20+ lines into the section. To be fair, it is in bold, but it would be a shame if people missed an important idea because they are skipping sections that start off seeming familiar. I actually hadn't considered an "as a whole" summary, but that might be a good idea.

markerikson · 2016-09-11T21:30:50Z

Okay, seems reasonable. I'll have to do some thinking about how to summarize things.

ellbee · 2016-09-13T21:39:25Z

I've now read all the sections (and also gone back and read most of the
existing Redux documentation too). Theres so much good stuff here, kudos!

Here are some things I have been thinking about the overall structure. I am far from a technical writing expert, so feel free to tell me I am talking nonsense at any point!

Reduce the number of docs to one per topic. It seems to me that there the are five distinct topics covered:
- Basic Reducer Usage
- Reducer Composition
- combineReducers and Beyond
- Normalizing State Shape
- Initialising State

I think there is a lot of cross over between "Basic Reducer Usage" stuff and the existing Reducer doc. I would be in favour of augmenting the existing Reducer doc where it is lacking and remove the "Basic Reducer Usage" material from the new docs.

There is also some cross-over between "combineReducers and Beyond" and "Reducer Composition"? Some re-organization might make sense there (or it might not make sense to treat them as distinct topics at all).

Add an introductory/overview/summary paragraph (or two) at the start of each
section. It should mention any idea important enough that it was highlighted
in bold in the doc. My thinking is that this makes the important points harder to miss.
Mention pre-requisites in the introduction, and list further reading at the end of
each doc.
Repeat the "combineReducers is just a convenience function" warning whenever
there is an opportunity. I think it is important enought to bear the repetition.

01: Basic Reducer Structure

There is a large overlap between this and the Reducer doc. I would be in favour
of adding the new stuff introduced here to the Reducer doc and dropping this file.

02: Splitting Reducer Logic

Remove "business function" and "case function" from the glossary (they aren't
mentioned again in the docs). "Utility function" is a well understood
term (?), if we also remove that then we would just have the list of reducer types.

03: Functional Decomposition

Drop the explanations of updateObject and updateItemInArray refactorings
and start from the listing after updateItemInArray is introduced. I think the updateObject refactoring might be a little controversial and updateItemInArray is covered in the Immutable update section. I would argue that these refactorings are a little off topic, and removing them cuts 100+ lines from the doc.

Merge "Splitting Reducer Logic" and "Functional Decomposition" into a single "Reducer Composition" doc.

04: Using combineReducers

Remove the basic information about combineReducers and refer user to the combineReducers doc instead. The Initialization information is seems like it has some overlap with the initialization document

05: Beyond combineReducers

LGTM.

Merge "Using combineReducers" with "Beyond combineReducers". Maybe "combineReducers and Beyond"?

06: Normalizing State Shape

LGTM

07: Managing Normalized Data

I'm not sure about the Redux-ORM stuff here. It looks neat, but doesn't feel essential to me. Removing it reduces the doc size considerably.

Merge with "Normalizing State Shape"

08 - Reusing Reducer Logic

LGTM

Merge with Splitting Reducer Logic and Functional Decomposition

09 - Immutable Update Patterns

This is very important stuff, Redux won't work as advertised if you get this
wrong. I think it should be its own section in the Reducers doc (it is already
touched upon in the "Splitting Reducers" section).

10 - Initializing State

LGTM

00: Pre-Requisites:

I would be in favour of moving the pre-requisites to the relevant introductions, and drop this as a stand-alone document.

I also have a couple of wording suggestions and things, but I think this is
enough for now!

markerikson · 2016-09-13T21:49:16Z

@ellbee : Thanks, this is some great feedback! I'll have to take some time to digest it and think through things. Also hoping to get review-ish comments from a couple more people. Much appreciated!

randycoulman

There is a lot here.

I know you've collected a lot of information about Redux best practices and have a good encyclopedia of information about it.

The challenge with that is that it's tempting to include it all here.

I can imagine similar sections talking about actions/action creators, async actions, selectors, etc., and I wonder how much would be too much for the core documentation. The longer it gets, the less likely people will read it.

The information here is really valuable, though, and having a distilled version of all of the information that's out there is a good idea.

Would it be worth splitting some of this into a separate online book about Redux in the real-world? Or is it OK to have this as part of the core documentation? I'm not sure I know the answer, but I think it's worth talking about.

A few other comments that didn't fit anywhere specific:

It feels like most of the community has standardized on using the Flux Standard Action specification. Is it worth mentioning that and then re-working the examples to comply?

randycoulman · 2016-09-18T05:58:30Z

docs/recipes/reducers/01-BasicReducerStructure.md

+# Basic Reducer Structure and State Shape
+
+## Basic Reducer Structure
+First and foremost, it's important to understand that your entire application really only has **one single reducer function**: the function that you've passed into `createStore` as the first argument.  That one single reducer function ultimately needs to do several things:


This is a really important point, and you've made it very clear here 👍

randycoulman · 2016-09-18T06:05:38Z

docs/recipes/reducers/01-BasicReducerStructure.md

+## Basic Reducer Structure
+First and foremost, it's important to understand that your entire application really only has **one single reducer function**: the function that you've passed into `createStore` as the first argument.  That one single reducer function ultimately needs to do several things:
+
+- If the incoming `state` value is undefined, it probably needs to return some default state value to initialize the overall state


I'm wondering about re-working this point a bit and the first code example below.

IMO, there shouldn't be any difference in how the reducer works the first time it is called (with undefined as the previous state) and any other time. The first code example is written to return the initial state without even looking at the action the first time. The second example, using an ES6 default parameter solves this problem.

Since Redux does call the reducer with undefined and an initialization action before anything else, this approach works. But it doesn't match my mental model of how a reducer should be written.

How about something like this for this bullet:

"The first time the reducer is called, the state value will be undefined. The reducer needs to handle this case by supplying a default state value before handling the incoming action."

Hmm. Good point, that should probably be tweaked a bit.

randycoulman · 2016-09-18T06:07:22Z

docs/recipes/reducers/01-BasicReducerStructure.md

+```js
+function counter(state, action) {
+  if (typeof state === 'undefined') {
+    return 0; // If state is undefined, return the initial application state


As mentioned above, this early return means that the first action is completely ignored. Maybe this should change so that the rest of the if statements are called with the initial state in this case? I'm not sure how I'd write that, because I've always just used ES6 default argument syntax.

Normally, especially if using combineReducers, the first call will be a randomized "probing" action designed to initialize the state, so it won't actually wind up handling anything specifically. But yeah, we should probably do state = 0 instead.

randycoulman · 2016-09-18T06:10:43Z

docs/recipes/reducers/01-BasicReducerStructure.md

+}
+```
+
+This is the basic structure that a typical Redux reducer function uses.


While I like the narrative progression here, and the refactoring of the basic reducer structure, I wonder if it would be better to have only the latter code example. That way, a hurried reader doesn't just grab the first example and use it without reading on. If there's only one code snippet, that's what people will grab.

The advantage of the first snippet is that it doesn't use ES6 features, but I'm not what our target is, so that may or may not be necessary.

The docs certainly use ES6 just about everywhere, but given that this is intended as a "tutorial" / "how-to" section, the progression here is definitely deliberate. I would hope that someone reading this would be looking more to read and learn than "grab a snippet and go".

randycoulman · 2016-09-18T06:14:24Z

docs/recipes/reducers/02-SplittingReducerLogic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Splitting Up Reducer Logic
+
+Obviously, for any meaningful application, putting *all* your update logic into a single reducer function is quickly going to become unmaintainable.  While there's no single rule for how long a function should be, it's generally agreed that functions should be relatively short and ideally only do one specific thing.  Because of this, the natural response for any programmer looking at a very large chunk of code is to try to break that code into smaller pieces that are easier to understand.


I think you could omit "Obviously" here. That word tends to belittle people for whom this is not yet obvious. Words like "obviously", "just", and "simply" are all things to watch out for. I'm working to remove them from my writing, so I tend to notice them more now.

Oddly enough, the use of just in the very next section is a place where I think it's an ok use :-)

Yeah, that's definitely a bit of a nervous tic in my writing. Obviously, I should try to eliminate that :)

randycoulman · 2016-09-18T06:52:17Z

docs/recipes/reducers/05-BeyondCombineReducers.md

+```js
+// Same as the "manual" rootReducer above
+const rootReducer = reduceReducers(combinedReducers, crossSliceReducer);
+```


reduce-reducers is a nice library, and I've used it to good effect. However, you have to make sure that the first reducer in the list initializes the entire shape of the state tree, because none of the subsequent reducers will see the undefined initial state.

It might be worth including that warning here.

Very good point.

randycoulman · 2016-09-18T06:58:00Z

docs/recipes/reducers/06-NormalizingStateShape.md

+                comment : ".....",
+            },
+        },
+        allIds : ["comment1", "comment2", "comment3", "commment4", "comment5"]


Is it necessary to have allIds here and below for users? Since these are formerly-nested objects, they're all referred to by their parent objects already. Maybe I haven't read far enough yet, though :-)

Yes - the idea is that for every entity type, you'd have both the lookup table and the list of all items.

randycoulman · 2016-09-18T07:02:23Z

docs/recipes/reducers/06-NormalizingStateShape.md

+}
+```
+
+Behaviors like "Look up all books by this author" then become an O(n) operation, with a linear scan of the join table.  Given the typical amounts of data in a client application and the speed of Javascript engines, an O(n) operation is likely to have sufficiently fast performance for most use cases


I'm not sure if it's a good idea to use big-O notation here, because I'm not sure how much of the audience would understand it without further explanation. It's probably OK to leave it at "linear scan" and people would understand what you mean.

Hmm. Maybe link to Wikipedia on this or something?

That is an option as well. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone just learning this stuff. There are already a lot of new ideas and concepts they're trying to wrap their heads around, and the introduction of big-O notation here might be yet another one.

randycoulman · 2016-09-18T07:04:48Z

docs/recipes/reducers/07-UpdatingNormalizedData.md

+function commentsById(state = {}, action) {
+    default : {
+       if(action.entities && action.entities.comments) {
+           return merge({}, state, action.entities.comments.byId);


Can you continue to use Object.assign here instead of introducing Lodash's merge function? One less concept/dependency for the reader.

I think I borrowed this example directly from one of Dan's comments in an issue thread. The idea is that you're not replacing the existing state, you're updating it. Not sure if there's a better way to illustrate that.

Doesn't Object.assign do exactly the same thing? There might be some subtle differences that I'm not aware of. But again, trying to minimize the number of new concepts that people have to wrap their heads around at one time.

No, they're definitely different. Object.assign / _.extend are shallow, _.merge is deep. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19965844/lodash-difference-between-extend-assign-and-merge .

randycoulman · 2016-09-18T07:22:29Z

docs/recipes/reducers/10-InitializingState.md

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+# Initializing State


Here's the separate section I suggested above. I think it would be good to unify the Initializing State stuff from the combineReducers section into this section and eliminate it from combineReducers. There might not be much unification to do - I think you covered most or all of the information in both places.

Worth looking at. I definitely wrote the combineReducers section well before I pulled over Dan's explanation from SO. Could certainly cross-link from "combineReducers" to "Initializing State"

markerikson · 2016-09-18T18:26:10Z

Wow. Well, I did ask for feedback :) Thanks, @randycoulman !

I'll go through and reply to a few of your comments now. Definitely sounds like I'm going to have to step back and rethink some of the overall approach, although I'm not exactly sure that that will involve.

markerikson · 2016-09-18T18:35:14Z

There is a lot here.

I know you've collected a lot of information about Redux best practices and have a good encyclopedia of information about it.

The challenge with that is that it's tempting to include it all here.

I can imagine similar sections talking about actions/action creators, async actions, selectors, etc., and I wonder how much would be too much for the core documentation. The longer it gets, the less likely people will read it.

Some very worthwhile discussion. I would say that reducers are more of a core topic than the others. While use of action creators / thunks / selectors is certainly "idiomatic Redux", it's entirely possible to write an app without those. On the other hand, every Redux app will have reducers.

The information here is really valuable, though, and having a distilled version of all of the information that's out there is a good idea.

Would it be worth splitting some of this into a separate online book about Redux in the real-world? Or is it OK to have this as part of the core documentation? I'm not sure I know the answer, but I think it's worth talking about.

Well, there certainly are a few of those out there already. However, I think there is a lot of value in having at least a good chunk of this in the docs. Having the stamp of "officialness" is kind of a big deal - see the reaction to Create-React-App as an example. It's also more easily visible than a random blog post somewhere.

It's certainly possible at least some of this could get moved elsewhere. As much as I like the Redux-ORM bit in "Managing Normalized Data", that might be a good candidate.

markerikson · 2016-09-18T19:21:15Z

Probably won't be able to start addressing this stuff until next weekend (or later). Thanks for all the comments so far. Would also appreciate feedback from @reactjs/redux , @aweary , @naw , @Phoenixmatrix , @tommikaikkonen , @mxstbr, and anyone else who's looked at this.

randycoulman · 2016-09-19T04:38:50Z

@markerikson Sorry if my review was too detailed or too overwhelming. I'm not suggesting that you need to re-work the whole thing, and I hope you didn't take it that way. You've got a lot of great stuff here, and I think it will help a lot of people.

And remember, I'm just one guy, so balance what I say against what others think.

markerikson · 2016-09-19T04:54:46Z

No no, this is very much the kind of feedback I was hoping to get. And yeah, I'd definitely like to hear from a few more people as well. Gotta get to bed, but I'll reply to a couple of the latest comments tomorrow.

Thanks for all the feedback so far!

markerikson · 2016-09-20T01:07:20Z

Relevant suggestions: https://github.com/thejameskyle/documentation-handbook

timdorr · 2016-09-23T18:42:46Z

@markerikson I know you wanted to make some changes, but I think this is pretty good as-is. And I think this is too important to leave hanging in a PR for too long! It can always be better, but we'll be accepting typo fixes until the end of time on all the docs 😄

If you want to make any other final changes, feel free. Regardless, I'll merge this in on Sunday at some point. We can make future changes via subsequent PRs.

Seriously, amazing work on this stuff!

markerikson · 2016-09-23T18:56:42Z

Heh. Thanks for the encouragement :)

The main thing I need to do atm is actually make sure it builds properly with the rest of the docs. I deliberately didn't worry about that yet, only focusing on the content. For example, I'm not sure about the numbered naming of the Markdown files versus the generated HTML filenames. I may need to rename the Markdown files to produce better HTML output.

Currently working on setting up a new gadget. I'll tackle this on Sunday, and let you know when I'm done. Please ping me before merging.

Thanks!

timdorr · 2016-09-23T18:59:57Z

All gitbook cares about is how it's referenced in the ToC. It builds the book off of what's linked there and that's it.

Adjust size of "Prerequisite Concepts" link Clarify wording in "Mutation" note Fix behavior in basic ES5 counter reducer example Clarify use of top-level object Add description of domain state, app state, and UI state Remove emphasis on "business" and "utility" functions Rework "Refactoring Reducers" example to cut down on repetition Remove duplication between "Using combineReducers" and "Initializing State" Remove uses of "obviously" Add note on use of reduceReducers Replace "O(n)" and "linear scan" with "a single loop" Clarify use of Lodash merge Emphasize need to update all levels of nesting Highlight common mistakes in updating

markerikson · 2016-09-25T21:34:43Z

Updated the content per review comments. Now time to do some checks for Gitbook results.

timdorr · 2016-09-25T22:50:40Z

BTW, this is what you need to add to the docs/README.md to make it show up in the gitbook build:

  * [Structuring Reducers](/docs/recipes/StructuringReducers.md)
    * [Basic Reducer Structure](/docs/recipes/reducers/01-BasicReducerStructure.md)
    * [Splitting Reducer Logic](/docs/recipes/reducers/02-SplittingReducerLogic.md)
    * [Refactoring Reducers Example](/docs/recipes/reducers/03-RefactoringReducersExample.md)
    * [Using `combineReducers`](/docs/recipes/reducers/04-UsingCombineReducers.md)
    * [Beyond `combineReducers`](/docs/recipes/reducers/05-BeyondCombineReducers.md)
    * [Normalizing State Shape](/docs/recipes/reducers/06-NormalizingStateShape.md)
    * [Updating Normalized Data](/docs/recipes/reducers/07-UpdatingNormalizedData.md)
    * [Reusing Reducer Logic](/docs/recipes/reducers/08-ReusingReducerLogic.md)
    * [Immutable Update Patterns](/docs/recipes/reducers/09-ImmutableUpdatePatterns.md)
    * [Initializing State](/docs/recipes/reducers/10-InitializingState.md)

I can put that at the top of the Recipes section. I think that looks best.

markerikson · 2016-09-25T22:56:05Z

Right, that was going to be my next step once I got Gitbook building okay in my repo. Unfortunately, it looks like the current Gitbook setup symlinks from /SUMMARY.md to /docs/README.md, which doesn't work on Windows, and things don't work from there. Currently playing around to see if I can figure out an alternative approach to getting Gitbook working.

timdorr · 2016-09-25T22:56:34Z

BTW, I'm going to merge this in now and we can do some other PRs to get them into the docs site. Plus, if anyone wants to suggest further changes, they can do so against the docs themselves 👍

Great job, @markerikson!

timdorr · 2016-09-25T22:57:42Z

@markerikson For that gitbook issue, just temporarily copy the docs/README.md contents into SUMMARY.md to get it building. Whenever you have it how you'd like, just copy the changes (if any) back and make a commit.

mg · 2016-09-26T09:48:49Z

Possible typo in "Using combineReducers":

import theDefaultReducer, {firstNamedReducer, secondNamedReducer} "./reducers";

// Use ES6 object literal shorthand syntax to define the object shape
const rootReducer = combineReducers({
    theDefaultReducer,

should be

import renamedDefaultReducer, {firstNamedReducer, secondNamedReducer} "./reducers";

// Use ES6 object literal shorthand syntax to define the object shape
const rootReducer = combineReducers({
    renamedDefaultReducer,

?

markerikson · 2016-09-26T15:43:41Z

@mg : Yeah, looks like I've got a couple typos in there. Will fix those.

markerikson · 2016-09-26T15:45:28Z

And fixed.

* Add an initial empty "Structuring Reducers" recipe. * Add initial intro text * Add "Basic Reducer Structure" section * Add initial "Basic State Shape" and "Splitting Reducer Logic" sections Note that a _lot_ of this content duplicates the existing "Reducers" doc page, which bothers me, but we'll work that out later. * Define terms and various function concepts * Add reducer refactoring examples * Add unfinished "Immutable Data" topic, reducer terms, and mutation note * Split "Structuring Reducers" into multiple pages * Add Prerequisite Concepts content * Really emphasize the prerequisites * Update StructuringReducers.md * Add example state shape and note about refactoring example * Add additional prerequisite links * Expand reducer refactoring example * Add more prerequisite links, and tweak example identifiers * Rework reducer terminology * Initial draft of "Using combineReducers" * Tweak comments for key naming * Add a bit more explanation of object key naming * Add initial draft for "Beyond combineReducers" * Tweak wording in a few spots * More prereq links, and another note on combineReducers * First draft of "Normalizing State Shape" * Add additional notes on normalization usage * Tweak wording and fix typos * Clarify reduceReducers example * Tweak wording * Fixes a typo * Add "Reusing Reducer Logic" page * Add "Immutable Update Patterns" page * Fix wrong invocation of toggleTodo which should be editTodo * Add "Managing Normalized Data" page * Tweak phrasing in "Managing Normalizing Data" * Add "Initializing State" * Tweak section headings * Address review comments for "Structuring Reducers" Adjust size of "Prerequisite Concepts" link Clarify wording in "Mutation" note Fix behavior in basic ES5 counter reducer example Clarify use of top-level object Add description of domain state, app state, and UI state Remove emphasis on "business" and "utility" functions Rework "Refactoring Reducers" example to cut down on repetition Remove duplication between "Using combineReducers" and "Initializing State" Remove uses of "obviously" Add note on use of reduceReducers Replace "O(n)" and "linear scan" with "a single loop" Clarify use of Lodash merge Emphasize need to update all levels of nesting Highlight common mistakes in updating

markerikson and others added 30 commits July 4, 2016 13:33

Add an initial empty "Structuring Reducers" recipe.

55893c8

Add initial intro text

007c713

Add "Basic Reducer Structure" section

6392e85

Add initial "Basic State Shape" and "Splitting Reducer Logic" sections

3bc6be6

Note that a _lot_ of this content duplicates the existing "Reducers" doc page, which bothers me, but we'll work that out later.

Define terms and various function concepts

152d58a

Add reducer refactoring examples

9a606ee

Add unfinished "Immutable Data" topic, reducer terms, and mutation note

aca189f

Split "Structuring Reducers" into multiple pages

ccd2f6c

Add Prerequisite Concepts content

418abf5

Really emphasize the prerequisites

aa64357

Update StructuringReducers.md

f2275b1

Merge pull request #2 from stevensacks/patch-1

a436f1b

Really emphasize the prerequisites

Add example state shape and note about refactoring example

b5cfd82

Add additional prerequisite links

1efe2e3

Expand reducer refactoring example

27bd414

Add more prerequisite links, and tweak example identifiers

0711717

Rework reducer terminology

39476da

Initial draft of "Using combineReducers"

4b15066

Tweak comments for key naming

3987892

Add a bit more explanation of object key naming

0f9fd70

Add initial draft for "Beyond combineReducers"

d658b8b

Tweak wording in a few spots

aed74c5

More prereq links, and another note on combineReducers

dc9a992

First draft of "Normalizing State Shape"

364c77f

Add additional notes on normalization usage

5e205b1

Tweak wording and fix typos

518234a

Clarify reduceReducers example

63fe88c

Tweak wording

ee5cc12

Fixes a typo

665435d

Merge pull request #3 from epeicher/patch-1

061d21f

Fixes a typo

ellbee reviewed Sep 11, 2016
View reviewed changes

randycoulman reviewed Sep 18, 2016

View reviewed changes

timdorr added the docs label Sep 23, 2016

timdorr merged commit d110b84 into reduxjs:master Sep 25, 2016

reduxjs deleted a comment from timini Apr 26, 2019


		Key Concepts:

		- Splitting relational/nested data up into separate tables

		@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
		# Splitting Up Reducer Logic

		Obviously, for any meaningful application, putting all your update logic into a single reducer function is quickly going to become unmaintainable. While there's no single rule for how long a function should be, it's generally agreed that functions should be relatively short and ideally only do one specific thing. Because of this, the natural response for any programmer looking at a very large chunk of code is to try to break that code into smaller pieces that are easier to understand.

Structuring reducers page #1930

Structuring reducers page #1930

Conversation

markerikson commented Sep 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ellbee Sep 11, 2016 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ellbee commented Sep 11, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 11, 2016

ellbee commented Sep 11, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 11, 2016

ellbee commented Sep 13, 2016 • edited Loading

markerikson commented Sep 13, 2016

randycoulman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

randycoulman Sep 18, 2016 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

markerikson commented Sep 18, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 18, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 18, 2016 • edited Loading

randycoulman commented Sep 19, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 19, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 20, 2016

timdorr commented Sep 23, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 23, 2016

timdorr commented Sep 23, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 25, 2016

timdorr commented Sep 25, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 25, 2016

timdorr commented Sep 25, 2016

timdorr commented Sep 25, 2016

mg commented Sep 26, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 26, 2016

markerikson commented Sep 26, 2016

ellbee Sep 11, 2016 •

edited

Loading

ellbee commented Sep 13, 2016 •

edited

Loading

randycoulman Sep 18, 2016 •

edited

Loading

markerikson commented Sep 18, 2016 •

edited

Loading