feat: in-memory fallback for storing user profiles #110

Merged
verbiricha merged 17 commits from dbfix into main 2023-01-27 21:38:42 +00:00
5 changed files with 178 additions and 148 deletions
Showing only changes of commit 71e92db24c - Show all commits

View File

@ -7,7 +7,8 @@ import EventKind from "Nostr/EventKind";
import { Subscriptions } from "Nostr/Subscriptions"; import { Subscriptions } from "Nostr/Subscriptions";
import { addDirectMessage, addNotifications, setFollows, setRelays } from "State/Login"; import { addDirectMessage, addNotifications, setFollows, setRelays } from "State/Login";
import { RootState } from "State/Store"; import { RootState } from "State/Store";
import { mapEventToProfile, MetadataCache, find, put, bulkGet } from "State/Users"; import { mapEventToProfile, MetadataCache } from "State/Users";
import db from "State/Users/Db";
import useSubscription from "Feed/Subscription"; import useSubscription from "Feed/Subscription";
import { getDisplayName } from "Element/ProfileImage"; import { getDisplayName } from "Element/ProfileImage";
import { MentionRegex } from "Const"; import { MentionRegex } from "Const";
@ -80,9 +81,9 @@ export default function useLoginFeed() {
return acc; return acc;
}, { created: 0, profile: <MetadataCache | null>null }); }, { created: 0, profile: <MetadataCache | null>null });
if (maxProfile.profile) { if (maxProfile.profile) {
let existing = await find(maxProfile.profile.pubkey); let existing = await db.find(maxProfile.profile.pubkey);
if ((existing?.created ?? 0) < maxProfile.created) { if ((existing?.created ?? 0) < maxProfile.created) {
await put(maxProfile.profile); await db.put(maxProfile.profile);
} }
} }
})().catch(console.warn); })().catch(console.warn);
@ -93,7 +94,7 @@ async function makeNotification(ev: TaggedRawEvent) {
switch (ev.kind) { switch (ev.kind) {
case EventKind.TextNote: { case EventKind.TextNote: {
const pubkeys = new Set([ev.pubkey, ...ev.tags.filter(a => a[0] === "p").map(a => a[1]!)]); const pubkeys = new Set([ev.pubkey, ...ev.tags.filter(a => a[0] === "p").map(a => a[1]!)]);
const users = await bulkGet(Array.from(pubkeys)) const users = await db.bulkGet(Array.from(pubkeys))
// @ts-ignore // @ts-ignore
const fromUser = users.find(a => a?.pubkey === ev.pubkey); const fromUser = users.find(a => a?.pubkey === ev.pubkey);
const name = getDisplayName(fromUser, ev.pubkey); const name = getDisplayName(fromUser, ev.pubkey);

View File

@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
import { HexKey, TaggedRawEvent } from "Nostr"; import { HexKey, TaggedRawEvent } from "Nostr";
import { ProfileCacheExpire } from "Const"; import { ProfileCacheExpire } from "Const";
import { mapEventToProfile, MetadataCache, add, bulkAdd, bulkGet, find, put, update, bulkPut } from "State/Users"; import { mapEventToProfile, MetadataCache, } from "State/Users";
import db from "State/Users/Db";
import Connection, { RelaySettings } from "Nostr/Connection"; import Connection, { RelaySettings } from "Nostr/Connection";
import Event from "Nostr/Event"; import Event from "Nostr/Event";
import EventKind from "Nostr/EventKind"; import EventKind from "Nostr/EventKind";
@ -166,7 +167,7 @@ export class NostrSystem {
async _FetchMetadata() { async _FetchMetadata() {
let missing = new Set<HexKey>(); let missing = new Set<HexKey>();
let meta = await bulkGet(Array.from(this.WantsMetadata)); let meta = await db.bulkGet(Array.from(this.WantsMetadata));
let expire = new Date().getTime() - ProfileCacheExpire; let expire = new Date().getTime() - ProfileCacheExpire;
for (let pk of this.WantsMetadata) { for (let pk of this.WantsMetadata) {
let m = meta.find(a => a?.pubkey === pk); let m = meta.find(a => a?.pubkey === pk);
@ -189,18 +190,18 @@ export class NostrSystem {
sub.OnEvent = async (e) => { sub.OnEvent = async (e) => {
let profile = mapEventToProfile(e); let profile = mapEventToProfile(e);
if (profile) { if (profile) {
let existing = await find(profile.pubkey); let existing = await db.find(profile.pubkey);
if((existing?.created ?? 0) < profile.created) { if((existing?.created ?? 0) < profile.created) {
await put(profile); await db.put(profile);
} else if(existing) { } else if(existing) {
await update(profile.pubkey, { loaded: new Date().getTime() }); await db.update(profile.pubkey, { loaded: new Date().getTime() });
} }
} }
} }
let results = await this.RequestSubscription(sub); let results = await this.RequestSubscription(sub);
let couldNotFetch = Array.from(missing).filter(a => !results.some(b => b.pubkey === a)); let couldNotFetch = Array.from(missing).filter(a => !results.some(b => b.pubkey === a));
console.debug("No profiles: ", couldNotFetch); console.debug("No profiles: ", couldNotFetch);
await bulkPut(couldNotFetch.map(a => { await db.bulkPut(couldNotFetch.map(a => {
return { return {
pubkey: a, pubkey: a,
loaded: new Date().getTime() loaded: new Date().getTime()

View File

@ -1,8 +1,6 @@
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
import { createSlice, PayloadAction } from '@reduxjs/toolkit' import { createSlice, PayloadAction } from '@reduxjs/toolkit'
import { HexKey, TaggedRawEvent, UserMetadata } from "Nostr"; import { HexKey, TaggedRawEvent, UserMetadata } from "Nostr";
import { hexToBech32 } from "../Util"; import { hexToBech32 } from "../Util";
import { db } from "Db";
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
import store from "State/Store";
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
export interface MetadataCache extends UserMetadata { export interface MetadataCache extends UserMetadata {
/** /**
@ -41,6 +39,18 @@ export function mapEventToProfile(ev: TaggedRawEvent) {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
} }
} }
export interface UsersDb {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
isAvailable(): Promise<boolean>
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
query(str: string): Promise<MetadataCache[]>
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
find(key: HexKey): Promise<MetadataCache | undefined>
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
add(user: MetadataCache): Promise<any>
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
put(user: MetadataCache): Promise<any>
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
bulkAdd(users: MetadataCache[]): Promise<any>
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
bulkGet(keys: HexKey[]): Promise<MetadataCache[]>
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
bulkPut(users: MetadataCache[]): Promise<any>
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
update(key: HexKey, fields: Record<string, any>): Promise<any>
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
export interface UsersStore { export interface UsersStore {
/** /**
* A list of seen users * A list of seen users
@ -60,87 +70,6 @@ const UsersSlice = createSlice({
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
} }
}); });
const { setUsers } = UsersSlice.actions export const { setUsers } = UsersSlice.actions
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
function groupByPubkey(acc: Record<HexKey, MetadataCache>, user: MetadataCache) {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
return { ...acc, [user.pubkey]: user }
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
export const add = async (user: MetadataCache) => {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
try {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
return await db.users.add(user)
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
} catch (error) {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
store.dispatch(setUsers({...users, [user.pubkey]: user }))
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
export const bulkAdd = async (newUserProfiles: MetadataCache[]) => {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
try {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
return await db.users.bulkAdd(newUserProfiles)
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
} catch (error) {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const newUsers = newUserProfiles.reduce(groupByPubkey, {})
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
store.dispatch(setUsers({...users, ...newUsers }))
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
export const bulkGet = async (pubKeys: HexKey[]) => {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
try {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const ret = await db.users.bulkGet(pubKeys);
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
return ret.filter(a => a !== undefined).map(a => a!);
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
} catch (error) {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const ids = new Set([...pubKeys])
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
return Object.values(users).filter(user => {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
return ids.has(user.pubkey)
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
})
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
export const find = async (pubKey: HexKey) => {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
try {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const user = await db.users.get(pubKey);
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
return user
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
} catch (error) {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const { users } = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
return users.users[pubKey]
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
export const put = async (user: MetadataCache) => {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
try {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
await db.users.put(user)
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
} catch (error) {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
store.dispatch(setUsers({...users, [user.pubkey]: user }))
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
export const update = async (pubKey: HexKey, fields: Record<string, any>) => {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
try {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
await db.users.update(pubKey, fields)
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
} catch (error) {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const current = users[pubKey]
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
store.dispatch(setUsers({...users, [pubKey]: {...current, ...fields }}))
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
export const bulkPut = async (newUsers: MetadataCache[]) => {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
try {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
await db.users.bulkPut(newUsers)
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
} catch (error) {
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
const newProfiles = newUsers.reduce(groupByPubkey, {})
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
store.dispatch(setUsers({ ...users, ...newProfiles }))
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
}
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
export const reducer = UsersSlice.reducer; export const reducer = UsersSlice.reducer;

v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-21 14:25:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a const SnortDb we can have const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then

At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported") or something similar, at this point we initialize the db to be ReduxDb which implements UsersDb or some other interface

This is great, i think we can improve it one more way, if we create an interface which defines these methods, then instead of using try/catch with a `const SnortDb` we can have `const db = SnortDb | ReduxDb` which both implement the users store, no need for try/catch then At startup we can test if indexdDb is available with `window.indexdDb.open("test").catch(() => "Not supported")` or something similar, at this point we initialize the `db` to be `ReduxDb` which implements `UsersDb` or some other interface
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later
v0l commented 2023-01-23 09:44:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

Hey if you dont have time to make these changes maybe lets just merge it now and work on it later

137
src/State/Users/Db.ts Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
import { HexKey } from "Nostr";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
import { db as idb } from "Db";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
import { UsersDb, MetadataCache, setUsers } from "State/Users";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
import store from "State/Store";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
class IndexedDb implements UsersDb {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
async isAvailable() {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
try {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const req = "indexedDb" in window && window.indexedDB.open('test', 1)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return Boolean(req)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
} catch (error) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return false
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
find(key: HexKey) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return idb.users.get(key);
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
query(q: string) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return idb.users
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
.where("npub").startsWithIgnoreCase(q)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
.or("name").startsWithIgnoreCase(q)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
.or("display_name").startsWithIgnoreCase(q)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
.or("nip05").startsWithIgnoreCase(q)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
.limit(5)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
.toArray()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
bulkGet(keys: HexKey[]) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return idb.users.bulkGet(keys).then(ret => ret.filter(a => a !== undefined).map(a => a!));
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
add(user: MetadataCache) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return idb.users.add(user)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
put(user: MetadataCache) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return idb.users.put(user)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
bulkAdd(users: MetadataCache[]) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return idb.users.bulkAdd(users)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
bulkPut(users: MetadataCache[]) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return idb.users.bulkPut(users)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
update(key: HexKey, fields: Record<string, any>) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return idb.users.update(key, fields)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
function groupByPubkey(acc: Record<HexKey, MetadataCache>, user: MetadataCache) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return { ...acc, [user.pubkey]: user }
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
class ReduxUsersDb implements UsersDb {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
async isAvailable() { return true }
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
async query(q: string) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return Object.values(users).filter(user => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const profile = user as MetadataCache
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return profile.name?.includes(q)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
|| profile.npub?.includes(q)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
|| profile.display_name?.includes(q)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
|| profile.nip05?.includes(q)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
})
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
async find(key: HexKey) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return users[key]
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
async add(user: MetadataCache) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
store.dispatch(setUsers({...users, [user.pubkey]: user }))
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
async put(user: MetadataCache) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
store.dispatch(setUsers({...users, [user.pubkey]: user }))
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
async bulkAdd(newUserProfiles: MetadataCache[]) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const newUsers = newUserProfiles.reduce(groupByPubkey, {})
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
store.dispatch(setUsers({...users, ...newUsers }))
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
async bulkGet(keys: HexKey[]) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const ids = new Set([...keys])
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return Object.values(users).filter(user => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
return ids.has(user.pubkey)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
})
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
async update(key: HexKey, fields: Record<string, any>) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const current = users[key]
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const updated = {...current, ...fields }
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
store.dispatch(setUsers({...users, [key]: updated }))
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
async bulkPut(newUsers: MetadataCache[]) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const state = store.getState()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const { users } = state.users
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
const newProfiles = newUsers.reduce(groupByPubkey, {})
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
store.dispatch(setUsers({ ...users, ...newProfiles }))
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
export const indexedDb = new IndexedDb()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
export const inMemoryDb = new ReduxUsersDb()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
let db: UsersDb = inMemoryDb
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
indexedDb.isAvailable().then(() => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
console.debug('IndexedDB available')
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
db = indexedDb
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
})
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it
export default db
v0l commented 2023-01-23 13:30:52 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever

Might as well try to open the SnortDb so we dont have a random "test" db be there forever
v0l commented 2023-01-25 10:03:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?

This seems to create an empty database and not store anything inside?
verbiricha commented 2023-01-25 16:57:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

I'll go back to using a dummy test db with version 1 then, wdyt?

I'll go back to using a dummy `test` db with version 1 then, wdyt?
v0l commented 2023-01-25 17:33:25 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there

Still doesnt seem to actually use IndexdDb, in logs it says its using indexdb but its not storing anything there
verbiricha commented 2023-01-27 09:06:04 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

My bad, 59878776d5 should fix it

My bad, https://github.com/v0l/snort/pull/110/commits/59878776d5a377e62937d1120c3b73a011a91c95 should fix it

View File

@ -1,89 +1,51 @@
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
import { useMemo } from "react";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
import { useSelector } from "react-redux";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
import { useLiveQuery } from "dexie-react-hooks"; import { useLiveQuery } from "dexie-react-hooks";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
import { RootState } from "State/Store";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
import { MetadataCache } from "State/Users"; import { MetadataCache } from "State/Users";
import { indexedDb, inMemoryDb } from "State/Users/Db";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
import { HexKey } from "Nostr"; import { HexKey } from "Nostr";
import { db } from "Db";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
export function useQuery(query: string, limit: number = 5) { export function useQuery(query: string, limit: number = 5) {
const { users } = useSelector((state: RootState) => state.users)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const inMemoryUsers = useMemo(() => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return Object.values(users).filter(user => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const profile = user as MetadataCache
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return profile.name?.includes(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
|| profile.npub?.includes(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
|| profile.display_name?.includes(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
|| profile.nip05?.includes(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
})
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
}, [users, query])
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const allUsers = useLiveQuery( const allUsers = useLiveQuery(
() => db.users () => indexedDb.query(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
.where("npub").startsWithIgnoreCase(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
.or("name").startsWithIgnoreCase(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
.or("display_name").startsWithIgnoreCase(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
.or("nip05").startsWithIgnoreCase(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
.limit(5)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
.toArray()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
.catch((err) => { .catch((err) => {
return inMemoryUsers console.error(err)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
}).then(() => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return inMemoryDb.query(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
}), }),
[query, inMemoryUsers], [query],
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
) )
return allUsers return allUsers
} }
export function useKey(pubKey: HexKey) { export function useKey(pubKey: HexKey) {
const { users } = useSelector((s: RootState) => s.users)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const inMemoryUser = useMemo(() => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return users[pubKey]
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
}, [users, pubKey])
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const user = useLiveQuery(async () => { const user = useLiveQuery(async () => {
if (pubKey) { if (pubKey) {
try { try {
return await db.users.get(pubKey); return await indexedDb.find(pubKey);
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
} catch (error) { } catch (error) {
return inMemoryUser console.error(error)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return await inMemoryDb.find(pubKey)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
} }
} }
}, [pubKey, inMemoryUser]); }, [pubKey]);
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return user return user
} }
export function useKeys(pubKeys: HexKey[]): Map<HexKey, MetadataCache> { export function useKeys(pubKeys: HexKey[]): Map<HexKey, MetadataCache> {
const { users } = useSelector((s: RootState) => s.users)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const inMemoryUsers = useMemo(() => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const res = new Map()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
Object.values(users).forEach(u => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const profile = u as MetadataCache
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
if (pubKeys.includes(profile.pubkey)) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
res.set(profile.pubkey, profile)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
}
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
})
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return res
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
}, [users, pubKeys])
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const dbUsers = useLiveQuery(async () => { const dbUsers = useLiveQuery(async () => {
if (pubKeys) { if (pubKeys) {
try { try {
const ret = await db.users.bulkGet(pubKeys); const ret = await indexedDb.bulkGet(pubKeys);
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
// @ts-ignore
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return new Map(ret.map(a => [a.pubkey, a])) return new Map(ret.map(a => [a.pubkey, a]))
} catch (error) { } catch (error) {
return inMemoryUsers console.error(error)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const ret = await inMemoryDb.bulkGet(pubKeys);
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return new Map(ret.map(a => [a.pubkey, a]))
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
} }
} }
return new Map() return new Map()
}, [pubKeys, inMemoryUsers]); }, [pubKeys]);
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return dbUsers || inMemoryUsers return dbUsers!
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
} }
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?

v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?