Add caching + supabase backend to snippet #67
Conversation
econti
force-pushed
the
cache_supa
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1ccd021 to
7028e73
Compare
| document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', (event) => { | ||
| const changesAppliedFromCache = refineryAPI.applyChangesFromCache(); | ||
| refineryAPI.applyChangesFromProd(changesAppliedFromCache); | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps we can do something smarter here. Document.readyState seemed to be slower from some local tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yea i think both would have to be done for any potential benefit, e.g.
const changesAppliedFromCache = refineryAPI.applyChangesFromCache()
if (document.readyState === "complete" || document.readyState === "interactive") {
refineryAPI.applyChangesFromProd(changesAppliedFromCache)
} else {
document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", () => refineryAPI.applyChangesFromProd(changesAppliedFromCache))
}
might be slightly faster if user ends up putting our script at the end instead of beginning and document is already loaded? not sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh smart! that's a good idea. i'll add it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, doesn't seem to work.
can't do this first because the DOM isn't ready yet:
const changesAppliedFromCache = refineryAPI.applyChangesFromCache()
and this doesn't apply any changes for some reason
let refineryAPI = new refinery.RefineryAPI();
if (document.readyState === "complete" || document.readyState === "interactive") {
refineryAPI.applyChangesFromCache()
}
| if (!(changesAppliedFromCache.has(change.id))) { | ||
| // the change hasn't been applied from the cache so we must apply it | ||
| // this works as long as we don't allow edits to changes (we currently don't) | ||
| // once we do, then we will need to make a check if the change has changed -_- | ||
| self.applyChange(change); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
or we could always apply the change no matter what - if they match, nothing happens. simpler code and handles both scenarios
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would nothing happen though? I was trying to guard against a flicker (even if the same text will be filled, just the filling itself may cause a flicker, but not entirely sure)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, a very, very, very small benefit of doing it this way is that the prod changes will get applied faster.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would nothing happen though?
pretty sure, at no time doesinnerHTML = null.
will get applied faster.
not noticably.
its not a big deal if you dont think its worth it.
No description provided.