Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add memoizedResultFunc to output selector interface #358

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

add memoizedResultFunc to output selector interface #358

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

montemishkin
Copy link

Exposes the memoizedResultFunc on the output selector so that (for example) you can access the cache (for example to clear it) when using lodash.memoize as is done in this example.

I see that #220 exists, but it renames the exposed field to memoize which is rather misleading. Also, it hasn't been touched for a while, so i dont know what the status is there.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jul 18, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #358 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##           master   #358   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage     100%   100%           
=====================================
  Files           1      1           
  Lines          15     15           
=====================================
  Hits           15     15
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/index.js 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fda697a...8785bd8. Read the comment docs.

@montemishkin
Copy link
Author

howdy @mnorrish I was hoping you could take a look at this (since you stamped #220)

My thought is that we should land this, and cancel #220.

Let me know what you think / if there is somebody else we can direct this too :)

@montemishkin
Copy link
Author

howdy @ellbee I was hoping you could merge this (I didn't realize this repo has write access restrictions).

Let me know what you think / if there is somebody else I can direct this to :)

@markerikson
Copy link
Contributor

Superseded by #514 .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants