fix(useStorageValue): properly handle storage-event removal - #1715
Open
ranneyd wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
fix(useStorageValue): properly handle storage-event removal#1715ranneyd wants to merge 1 commit into
ranneyd wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What is the current behavior, and the steps to reproduce the issue?
When you have two tabs, and one of them removes an item in local storage, the second one will ignore that update. Setting the value works, just not removing it.
What is the expected behavior?
Any operation to a local storage key in one tab is synchronized with the other tab.
How does this PR fix the problem?
This synchronization happens via the window's
storageevent. When a value is removed,newValueis set tonull. The handler for that event ignores events where the value isnull. This simply removes that check.I don't think this behavior is intentional. That check was added in #960, which was a large refactor. The check wasn't there before, so I think this fell through the cracks.
Checklist