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
21 changed files with 369 additions and 123 deletions

View File

@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
import { HexKey, TaggedRawEvent, UserMetadata } from "Nostr";
import { hexToBech32 } from "../Util";
export interface MetadataCache extends UserMetadata {
/**
* When the object was saved in cache
*/
loaded: number,
/**
* When the source metadata event was created
*/
created: number,
/**
* The pubkey of the owner of this metadata
*/
pubkey: HexKey,
/**
* bech32 encoded pub key
*/
npub: string
};
export function mapEventToProfile(ev: TaggedRawEvent) {
try {
let data: UserMetadata = JSON.parse(ev.content);
return {
pubkey: ev.pubkey,
npub: hexToBech32("npub", ev.pubkey),
created: ev.created_at,
loaded: new Date().getTime(),
...data
} as MetadataCache;
} catch (e) {
console.error("Failed to parse JSON", ev, e);
}
}

View File

@ -1,16 +1,20 @@
import Dexie, { Table } from "dexie";
import { MetadataCache } from "Db/User";
import { MetadataCache } from "State/Users";
import { hexToBech32 } from "Util";
export const NAME = 'snortDB'
export const VERSION = 2
const STORES = {
users: '++pubkey, name, display_name, picture, nip05, npub'
}
export class SnortDB extends Dexie {
users!: Table<MetadataCache>;
constructor() {
super('snortDB');
this.version(2).stores({
users: '++pubkey, name, display_name, picture, nip05, npub'
}).upgrade(tx => {
super(NAME);
this.version(VERSION).stores(STORES).upgrade(tx => {
return tx.table("users").toCollection().modify(user => {
user.npub = hexToBech32("npub", user.pubkey)
})

View File

@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
import { useMemo } from "react";
import { Link } from "react-router-dom";
import useProfile from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { useUserProfile } from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { HexKey } from "Nostr";
import { hexToBech32, profileLink } from "Util";
export default function Mention({ pubkey }: { pubkey: HexKey }) {
const user = useProfile(pubkey)?.get(pubkey);
const user = useUserProfile(pubkey)
const name = useMemo(() => {
let name = hexToBech32("npub", pubkey).substring(0, 12);

View File

@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ import {
import AsyncButton from "Element/AsyncButton";
import LNURLTip from "Element/LNURLTip";
import Copy from "Element/Copy";
import useProfile from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { useUserProfile }from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import useEventPublisher from "Feed/EventPublisher";
import { debounce, hexToBech32 } from "Util";
import { UserMetadata } from "Nostr";
@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ type ReduxStore = any;
export default function Nip5Service(props: Nip05ServiceProps) {
const navigate = useNavigate();
const pubkey = useSelector<ReduxStore, string>(s => s.login.publicKey);
const user = useProfile(pubkey);
const user = useUserProfile(pubkey);
const publisher = useEventPublisher();
const svc = useMemo(() => new ServiceProvider(props.service), [props.service]);
const [serviceConfig, setServiceConfig] = useState<ServiceConfig>();

View File

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ import { eventLink, getReactions, hexToBech32 } from "Util";
import NoteFooter from "Element/NoteFooter";
import NoteTime from "Element/NoteTime";
import EventKind from "Nostr/EventKind";
import useProfile from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { useUserProfiles } from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { TaggedRawEvent, u256 } from "Nostr";
import { useInView } from "react-intersection-observer";
@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ export default function Note(props: NoteProps) {
const { data, isThread, related, highlight, options: opt, ["data-ev"]: parsedEvent } = props
const ev = useMemo(() => parsedEvent ?? new NEvent(data), [data]);
const pubKeys = useMemo(() => ev.Thread?.PubKeys || [], [ev]);
const users = useProfile(pubKeys);
const users = useUserProfiles(pubKeys);
const deletions = useMemo(() => getReactions(related, ev.Id, EventKind.Deletion), [related]);
const { ref, inView } = useInView({ triggerOnce: true });

View File

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ import useEventPublisher from "Feed/EventPublisher";
import { getReactions, hexToBech32, normalizeReaction, Reaction } from "Util";
import { NoteCreator } from "Element/NoteCreator";
import LNURLTip from "Element/LNURLTip";
import useProfile from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { useUserProfile } from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { default as NEvent } from "Nostr/Event";
import { RootState } from "State/Store";
import { HexKey, TaggedRawEvent } from "Nostr";
@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ export default function NoteFooter(props: NoteFooterProps) {
const login = useSelector<RootState, HexKey | undefined>(s => s.login.publicKey);
const prefs = useSelector<RootState, UserPreferences>(s => s.login.preferences);
const author = useProfile(ev.RootPubKey)?.get(ev.RootPubKey);
const author = useUserProfile(ev.RootPubKey);
const publisher = useEventPublisher();
const [reply, setReply] = useState(false);
const [tip, setTip] = useState(false);

View File

@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ import "./NoteToSelf.css";
import { Link, useNavigate } from "react-router-dom";
import { FontAwesomeIcon } from "@fortawesome/react-fontawesome";
import { faBook, faCertificate } from "@fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons"
import useProfile from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { useUserProfile } from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import Nip05 from "Element/Nip05";
import { profileLink } from "Util";
@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ export interface NoteToSelfProps {
};
function NoteLabel({pubkey, link}:NoteToSelfProps) {
const user = useProfile(pubkey)?.get(pubkey);
const user = useUserProfile(pubkey);
return (
<div>
Note to Self <FontAwesomeIcon icon={faCertificate} size="xs" />

View File

@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
import "./ProfileImage.css";
import { useMemo } from "react";
import { useNavigate } from "react-router-dom";
import useProfile from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { Link, useNavigate } from "react-router-dom";
import { useUserProfile } from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { hexToBech32, profileLink } from "Util";
import Avatar from "Element/Avatar"
import Nip05 from "Element/Nip05";
import { HexKey } from "Nostr";
import { MetadataCache } from "Db/User";
import { MetadataCache } from "State/Users";
export interface ProfileImageProps {
pubkey: HexKey,
@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ export interface ProfileImageProps {
export default function ProfileImage({ pubkey, subHeader, showUsername = true, className, link }: ProfileImageProps) {
const navigate = useNavigate();
const user = useProfile(pubkey)?.get(pubkey);
const user = useUserProfile(pubkey);
const name = useMemo(() => {
return getDisplayName(user, pubkey);

View File

@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ import { ReactNode } from "react";
import ProfileImage from "Element/ProfileImage";
import FollowButton from "Element/FollowButton";
import useProfile from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { useUserProfile } from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { HexKey } from "Nostr";
import { useInView } from "react-intersection-observer";
@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ export interface ProfilePreviewProps {
}
export default function ProfilePreview(props: ProfilePreviewProps) {
const pubkey = props.pubkey;
const user = useProfile(pubkey)?.get(pubkey);
const user = useUserProfile(pubkey);
const { ref, inView } = useInView({ triggerOnce: true });
const options = {
about: true,

View File

@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ import Invoice from "Element/Invoice";
import Hashtag from "Element/Hashtag";
import Tag from "Nostr/Tag";
import { MetadataCache } from "Db/User";
import { MetadataCache } from "State/Users";
import Mention from "Element/Mention";
import TidalEmbed from "Element/TidalEmbed";
import { useSelector } from 'react-redux';

View File

@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ import "@webscopeio/react-textarea-autocomplete/style.css";
import "./Textarea.css";
import { useState } from "react";
import { useLiveQuery } from "dexie-react-hooks";
import ReactTextareaAutocomplete from "@webscopeio/react-textarea-autocomplete";
import emoji from "@jukben/emoji-search";
import TextareaAutosize from "react-textarea-autosize";
@ -10,8 +9,8 @@ import TextareaAutosize from "react-textarea-autosize";
import Avatar from "Element/Avatar";
import Nip05 from "Element/Nip05";
import { hexToBech32 } from "Util";
import { db } from "Db";
import { MetadataCache } from "Db/User";
import { MetadataCache } from "State/Users";
import { useQuery } from "State/Users/Hooks";
interface EmojiItemProps {
name: string
@ -45,16 +44,7 @@ const UserItem = (metadata: MetadataCache) => {
const Textarea = ({ users, onChange, ...rest }: any) => {
const [query, setQuery] = useState('')
const allUsers = useLiveQuery(
() => db.users
.where("npub").startsWithIgnoreCase(query)
.or("name").startsWithIgnoreCase(query)
.or("display_name").startsWithIgnoreCase(query)
.or("nip05").startsWithIgnoreCase(query)
.limit(5)
.toArray(),
[query],
);
const allUsers = useQuery(query)
const userDataProvider = (token: string) => {
setQuery(token)

View File

@ -2,12 +2,13 @@ import "./ZapButton.css";
import { faBolt } from "@fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons";
import { FontAwesomeIcon } from "@fortawesome/react-fontawesome";
import { useState } from "react";
import useProfile from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { useUserProfile } from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { HexKey } from "Nostr";
import LNURLTip from "Element/LNURLTip";
const ZapButton = ({ pubkey, svc }: { pubkey?: HexKey, svc?: string }) => {
const profile = useProfile(pubkey)?.get(pubkey ?? "");
const profile = useUserProfile(pubkey!)
const [zap, setZap] = useState(false);
const service = svc ?? (profile?.lud16 || profile?.lud06);

View File

@ -7,9 +7,9 @@ import EventKind from "Nostr/EventKind";
import { Subscriptions } from "Nostr/Subscriptions";
import { addDirectMessage, addNotifications, setFollows, setRelays } from "State/Login";
import { RootState } from "State/Store";
import { db } from "Db";
import { mapEventToProfile, MetadataCache } from "State/Users";
import { getDb } from "State/Users/Db";
import useSubscription from "Feed/Subscription";
import { mapEventToProfile, MetadataCache } from "Db/User";
import { getDisplayName } from "Element/ProfileImage";
import { MentionRegex } from "Const";
@ -87,9 +87,10 @@ export default function useLoginFeed() {
return acc;
}, { created: 0, profile: <MetadataCache | null>null });
if (maxProfile.profile) {
let existing = await db.users.get(maxProfile.profile.pubkey);
const db = getDb()
let existing = await db.find(maxProfile.profile.pubkey);
if ((existing?.created ?? 0) < maxProfile.created) {
await db.users.put(maxProfile.profile);
await db.put(maxProfile.profile);
}
}
})().catch(console.warn);
@ -115,10 +116,12 @@ export default function useLoginFeed() {
}
async function makeNotification(ev: TaggedRawEvent) {
const db = getDb()
switch (ev.kind) {
case EventKind.TextNote: {
const pubkeys = new Set([ev.pubkey, ...ev.tags.filter(a => a[0] === "p").map(a => a[1]!)]);
const users = (await db.users.bulkGet(Array.from(pubkeys))).filter(a => a !== undefined).map(a => a!);
const users = await db.bulkGet(Array.from(pubkeys))
// @ts-ignore
const fromUser = users.find(a => a?.pubkey === ev.pubkey);
const name = getDisplayName(fromUser, ev.pubkey);
const avatarUrl = (fromUser?.picture?.length ?? 0) === 0 ? Nostrich : fromUser?.picture;

View File

@ -1,27 +1,13 @@
import { useLiveQuery } from "dexie-react-hooks";
import { useEffect } from "react";
import { db } from "Db";
import { MetadataCache } from "Db/User";
import { useEffect, useMemo } from "react";
import { RootState } from "State/Store";
import { MetadataCache } from "State/Users";
import { useKey, useKeys } from "State/Users/Hooks";
import { HexKey } from "Nostr";
import { System } from "Nostr/System";
export default function useProfile(pubKey?: HexKey | Array<HexKey> | undefined): Map<HexKey, MetadataCache> | undefined {
const user = useLiveQuery(async () => {
let userList = new Map<HexKey, MetadataCache>();
if (pubKey) {
if (Array.isArray(pubKey)) {
let ret = await db.users.bulkGet(pubKey);
let filtered = ret.filter(a => a !== undefined).map(a => a!);
return new Map(filtered.map(a => [a.pubkey, a]))
} else {
let ret = await db.users.get(pubKey);
if (ret) {
userList.set(ret.pubkey, ret);
}
}
}
return userList;
}, [pubKey]);
export function useUserProfile(pubKey: HexKey): MetadataCache | undefined {
const users = useKey(pubKey);
useEffect(() => {
if (pubKey) {
@ -30,5 +16,19 @@ export default function useProfile(pubKey?: HexKey | Array<HexKey> | undefined):
}
}, [pubKey]);
return user;
return users;
}
export function useUserProfiles(pubKeys: Array<HexKey>): Map<HexKey, MetadataCache> | undefined {
const users = useKeys(pubKeys);
useEffect(() => {
if (pubKeys) {
System.TrackMetadata(pubKeys);
return () => System.UntrackMetadata(pubKeys);
}
}, [pubKeys]);
return users;
}

View File

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
import { HexKey, TaggedRawEvent } from "Nostr";
import { ProfileCacheExpire } from "Const";
import { db } from "Db";
import { mapEventToProfile, MetadataCache } from "Db/User";
import { mapEventToProfile, MetadataCache, } from "State/Users";
import { getDb } from "State/Users/Db";
import Connection, { RelaySettings } from "Nostr/Connection";
import Event from "Nostr/Event";
import EventKind from "Nostr/EventKind";
@ -167,7 +167,8 @@ export class NostrSystem {
async _FetchMetadata() {
let missing = new Set<HexKey>();
let meta = await db.users.bulkGet(Array.from(this.WantsMetadata));
const db = getDb()
let meta = await db.bulkGet(Array.from(this.WantsMetadata));
let expire = new Date().getTime() - ProfileCacheExpire;
for (let pk of this.WantsMetadata) {
let m = meta.find(a => a?.pubkey === pk);
@ -190,18 +191,18 @@ export class NostrSystem {
sub.OnEvent = async (e) => {
let profile = mapEventToProfile(e);
if (profile) {
let existing = await db.users.get(profile.pubkey);
let existing = await db.find(profile.pubkey);
if((existing?.created ?? 0) < profile.created) {
await db.users.put(profile);
await db.put(profile);
} else if(existing) {
await db.users.update(profile.pubkey, { loaded: new Date().getTime() });
await db.update(profile.pubkey, { loaded: new Date().getTime() });
}
}
}
let results = await this.RequestSubscription(sub);
let couldNotFetch = Array.from(missing).filter(a => !results.some(b => b.pubkey === a));
console.debug("No profiles: ", couldNotFetch);
await db.users.bulkPut(couldNotFetch.map(a => {
await db.bulkPut(couldNotFetch.map(a => {
return {
pubkey: a,
loaded: new Date().getTime()

View File

@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ import { FontAwesomeIcon } from "@fortawesome/react-fontawesome";
import { faGear, faEnvelope } from "@fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons";
import { useNavigate, useParams } from "react-router-dom";
import useProfile from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { useUserProfile } from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import FollowButton from "Element/FollowButton";
import { extractLnAddress, parseId, hexToBech32 } from "Util";
import Avatar from "Element/Avatar";
@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ export default function ProfilePage() {
const params = useParams();
const navigate = useNavigate();
const id = useMemo(() => parseId(params.id!), [params]);
const user = useProfile(id)?.get(id);
const user = useUserProfile(id);
const loginPubKey = useSelector<RootState, HexKey | undefined>(s => s.login.publicKey);
const follows = useSelector<RootState, HexKey[]>(s => s.login.follows);
const isMe = loginPubKey === id;

View File

@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ import { FontAwesomeIcon } from "@fortawesome/react-fontawesome";
import { faShop } from "@fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons";
import useEventPublisher from "Feed/EventPublisher";
import useProfile from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import { useUserProfile } from "Feed/ProfileFeed";
import VoidUpload from "Feed/VoidUpload";
import { logout } from "State/Login";
import { hexToBech32, openFile } from "Util";
@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ export default function ProfileSettings() {
const id = useSelector<RootState, HexKey | undefined>(s => s.login.publicKey);
const privKey = useSelector<RootState, HexKey | undefined>(s => s.login.privateKey);
const dispatch = useDispatch();
const user = useProfile(id)?.get(id || "");
const user = useUserProfile(id!);
const publisher = useEventPublisher();
const [name, setName] = useState<string>();

View File

@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
import { configureStore } from "@reduxjs/toolkit";
import { reducer as LoginReducer } from "State/Login";
import { reducer as UsersReducer } from "State/Users";
const store = configureStore({
reducer: {
login: LoginReducer
login: LoginReducer,
users: UsersReducer,
}
});

75
src/State/Users.ts Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
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'
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 { HexKey, TaggedRawEvent, UserMetadata } from "Nostr";
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 { hexToBech32 } from "../Util";
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 MetadataCache extends UserMetadata {
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
* When the object was saved in cache
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
loaded: number,
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
* When the source metadata event was created
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
created: number,
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
* The pubkey of the owner of this metadata
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
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
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
* The bech32 encoded 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
npub: string
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 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 2023-01-23 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
let data: UserMetadata = JSON.parse(ev.content);
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 {
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
pubkey: ev.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
npub: hexToBech32("npub", ev.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
created: ev.created_at,
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
loaded: new Date().getTime(),
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
...data
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
} as 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
} catch (e) {
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
console.error("Failed to parse JSON", ev, e);
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 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 {
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
* A list of seen 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
*/
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
users: Record<HexKey, 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
};
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
const InitState = { users: {} } as UsersStore;
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
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 2023-01-23 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
name: "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
initialState: InitState,
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
reducers: {
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
setUsers(state, action: PayloadAction<Record<HexKey, 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
state.users = action.payload
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 { 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
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 2023-01-23 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

149
src/State/Users/Db.ts Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
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
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
if ("indexedDB" in window) {
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 new Promise<boolean>((resolve) => {
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 = window.indexedDB.open("dummy", 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
req.onsuccess = (ev) => {
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
resolve(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
req.onerror = (ev) => {
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
resolve(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
return Promise.resolve(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
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
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((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
if (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
console.debug('Using Indexed 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
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
} else {
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('Using in-memory 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
})
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 function getDb() {
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 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

60
src/State/Users/Hooks.ts Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
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 { 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";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
import { MetadataCache } from "State/Users";
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
import { getDb, 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 type { RootState } from "State/Store"
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
import { HexKey } from "Nostr";
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`?
export function useQuery(query: string, limit: number = 5) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const db = getDb()
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(
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
() => db.query(query)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
.catch((err) => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
console.error(err)
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`?
}),
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
[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`?
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return allUsers
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`?
export function useKey(pubKey: HexKey) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const db = getDb()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
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`?
const defaultUser = 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 () => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
if (pubKey) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
try {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return await db.find(pubKey);
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
} catch (error) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
console.error(error)
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
return defaultUser
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`?
}, [pubKey, defaultUser]);
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
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`?
export function useKeys(pubKeys: HexKey[]): Map<HexKey, MetadataCache> {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const db = getDb()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const dbUsers = useLiveQuery(async () => {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
if (pubKeys) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
try {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
const ret = await db.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`?
} catch (error) {
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
console.error(error)
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`?
}
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 new Map()
v0l commented 2023-01-23 12:43:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

db.find?

`db.find`?
}, [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!
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`?