Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[docs] Background reload not really documented #4162

Closed
denisw opened this issue Feb 12, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

[docs] Background reload not really documented #4162

denisw opened this issue Feb 12, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@denisw
Copy link

denisw commented Feb 12, 2016

The documentation of DS.Store.findRecord says:

If the record was already in the store, the promise will be resolved immediately.
Otherwise, the store will ask the adapter's find method to find the necessary data.

This and other documentation sections led me to believe that fetching a cached record from the store also means not fetching a new version from the server. Thus, I was wondering when I saw fetch requests for cached records in the Chrome developer console. I needed to look into the DS.Store source code to find out that Ember Data can reload a record in the background while returning the currently known version, and that JSONAPIAdapter does this by default.

The existence of background reload should really be easier to discover, ideally by adding a reference to it to both the API documentation of DS.Store and one of the Ember Data guides.

@denisw denisw changed the title [docs] Background reload not properly documented [docs] Background reload not really documented Feb 12, 2016
@jaydev
Copy link

jaydev commented Feb 23, 2016

I also found this behavior confusing until I read about it in the Ember Data release notes. Unfortunately I find myself digging through the Ember blog really often for implementation details when the docs should be the single source of truth.

@pangratz
Copy link
Member

pangratz commented May 4, 2016

I am closing this issue since the documentation should have improved now that #4338 has been merged. Please feel free to reopen if you think this is still not documented sufficiently. Thanks!

@pangratz pangratz closed this as completed May 4, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants