[BUGFIX beta] Don't unnecessarily materialize records #4272
Conversation
|
|
||
| if (inverseRecord && inverseRecord.isLoaded()) { | ||
| return inverseRecord.getRecord(); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This or #4271 needs to be updated, depending on which is merged first.
|
Looks good @pangratz. 👍 |
|
@igorT can you take a look at this PR and check if this is what you had in mind? |
| @param {Object} data | ||
| @return {DS.InternalModel|Array} pushed InternalModel(s) | ||
| */ | ||
| _push(data) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we name this to refer to internalModel somehow
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Struggling to find a better name here, any suggestions? _shallowPush or _lightweightPush? Because _pushInternalModel doesn't sound right to me...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you think of making this a public method pushRef or something, which returns RecordReference(s)? I think @fivetanley you were mentioning something like that somewhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've created RFC#161 to get a discussion on the store.pushRef going...
This adds a `store#_push` method which returns DS.InternalModel's instead of materialized DS.Model instances. This allows us to defer the materialization process of an InternalModel until the corresponding record is actually needed.
|
👯♂️ |
This adds a
store#_pushmethod which returns DS.InternalModel'sinstead of materialized DS.Model instances. This allows us to defer the
materialization process of an InternalModel until the corresponding
record is actually needed.