withStorageSync support for INDEXEDDB

[audhit]

withStorageSync is working and a cool feature, thanks a lot for it, but I would love to see the support for indexeddb as well because it has more storage limitation compare to 5 MB of localstorage. Please let me know, how can I achieve it. I really want the storage to be indexeddb instead of localstorage or sessionstorage. Thanks in advance.

[rainerhahnekamp]

You can add a PR. If you are quick, it might land in the 19 release (which is overdue)

[audhit]

thanks @rainerhahnekamp , is there any 3rd party tool which can provide storage persistence with indexeddb? Please let me know, thanks :)

[rainerhahnekamp]

@audhit I only know https://dexie.org/

[audhit]

@rainerhahnekamp do we now have the support for indexedDB storage instead of localStorage/sessionStorage in the latest version v19.0.2 or it is still under development? Please let us know, thanks in advance for the great library...keep rocking 🚀

[rainerhahnekamp]

Not yet, but nobody prevents us from adding it. I was waiting for further input from the community about the recommended tooling. I don't have a problem with dexie but would know if it is still the library to use.

[audhit]

https://dexie.org/ looks really good, is it possible to create a wrapper out of dexie and connect it with storageSync API just like below to make it as simple as possible, hoping for the best

  withStorageSync<User>({
    storage: () => dexie,  // rest of the things will be taken care automatically by the library without much extra configs maybe 
  })
);`

[mzkmnk]

Would @audhit like to add a PR?

[rainerhahnekamp]

@audhit or @mzkmnk or both: You can give it a try. The only design requirement that I have, is that it needs to be treeshakable. We only want to have dexie as requirement if the user wants to use it.

Therefore:

• The syntax should be withStorageSync({}, withDexie()) (as it is in withDevtools)
• withDexie needs to be a secondary entrypoint (look at the redux connector as example)

[rainerhahnekamp]

@mzkmnk and @audhit

I read through the docs of Dexie and IndexedDB. For simple state synchronisation, I think Dexie is an overkill since it allows more database-related functionality.

We actually just want to persist the data and don't run specific queries. So instead of withDexie(), it could be just withIndexedDb().

What do you think?

[mzkmnk]

@rainerhahnekamp
I actually thought so too. Using DexieDB in this case would be clearly overkill and might cause us to lose sight of our goal. Therefore, I am planning to implement the save and read functionalities for IndexedDB. How does this look to you?

import { IndexedDB, withStorageSync } from '@angular-architects/ngrx-toolkit';
...
withStorageSync({
   key: 'todos',
   storage: () => IndexedDB,
}),

appendix
Since IndexedDB is asynchronous, there’s some room for consideration.. :)
How about creating a new withIndexedDBSync function instead of integrating IndexedDB into withStorageSync?

appendix2 : )
#129
In this PR, I created a sample code for withIndexedDBSync. It seems promising as it could be simpler than integrating it into the current withStorageSync. What do you think?

[audhit]

Hey guys, sorry I was away for some time. Looks like @mzkmnk is already working on it here - #129 . Looking forward to it. @rainerhahnekamp please let me know when it is available and which version to install of ngrx-toolkit in order to get it in my project. Really superb work and wonderful toolkit and community. You guys are really helping me out here. Thanks a lot. Cheers :)