[Feature Request] Ability to fetch a single page of items in a list #406

Activity

1. mtscout6 commented on Dec 2, 2016

   

   mtscout6

   on Dec 2, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   So this gets interesting because there's a few ways to do this. First is to be transparent about paging. So, something like:

   for (let page of request()) {
     for (let item of page.items) { ... }
   }
   

   Can't say that I'm a huge fan of that approach. Though if you move to using the newer for await support from Babel as proposed with the async generator transform and outlined as a tc39 proposal

   Then you could do something like this:

   for await (let item of request()) {
     ...
   }
   

   Though the ES5 equivalent gets really messy:

   function forEach(ai, fn) {
     return ai.next().then(function (r) {
       if (!r.done) {
         fn(r);
         return forEach(ai, fn);
       }
     });
   }
   
   var item = 0;
   forEach(request(), function(val) { item += val.value })
     .then(function () {
       console.log(item);
     });
   

   Essentially downstream users that use Babel would be the ones to win here, those not Using Babel would need to wait a few years for the Spec changes to replicate to the different JavaScript interpreters. If we did the async generator approach then we should callout in the docs that Babel is recommended and that we wouldn't support users not using Babel.

   @clayreimann Thoughts?
2. jeanettehead commented on Dec 3, 2016

   

   jeanettehead

   on Dec 3, 2016

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   I'm down for that. A (stupidly simple) alternative would be to allow the users to send a page option through and fetch just that page. As it stands, sending a page option causes an infinite loop of requests, which seems like a bug.
3. jeanettehead commented on Dec 15, 2016

   

   jeanettehead

   on Dec 15, 2016

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   @mtscout6 I'd still like to make this happen. I'm down for either approach - do you have any thoughts?
4. mtscout6 commented on Dec 15, 2016

   

   mtscout6

   on Dec 15, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   The page option is a valid option, and much simpler too. Go ahead and submit a PR for it.
5. jeanettehead commented on Dec 20, 2016

   

   jeanettehead

   on Dec 20, 2016

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Opened a pull request: #409
6. jeanettehead commented on Jan 20, 2017

   

   jeanettehead

   on Jan 20, 2017

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   This would be all set, but when I npm install https://github.com/github-tools/github.git#3.1.0, it's unable to be imported into my project because it can't find the dist/components/GitHub.js specified as the main entry point in the package.json. Is this fixable or can a new release get published to npm?
7. jeanettehead commented on Jan 27, 2017

   

   jeanettehead

   on Jan 27, 2017

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   @mtscout6 @clayreimann any update on my above question?
8. mtscout6 commented on Jan 27, 2017

   

   mtscout6

   on Jan 27, 2017

   Member

   More actions

   That dist folder is generated during the CI. With the CI failing and not publishing to npm that's your problem. I have not had time to dig into the cause of the CI failure, and I do not have permissions to push directly to npm bypassing CI. I wish I could say that I had the time to look at it, but I don't for some time.