feat(with-storage-sync): indexeddb support

[mzkmnk]

Issue

#111

Content

In this PR, we modified withStorageSync to support IndexedDB.

Breaking Changes

• The storage argument has been removed, and a new second argument now allows you to choose withIndexeddb(), withLocalStorage(), or withSessionStorage(). By default, withLocalStorage() is used.

Sample Code

const TodoIndexedDBSync = signalStore(
  withState<...>({...}),
  withStorageSync(
    {key:'todos'},
    withIndexeddb(),
  ),
  withMethods((store) => ({...}))
);

[mzkmnk]

@rainerhahnekamp
The code is complete. Please review it!

[mzkmnk]

@audhit
What do you think of this fix？

[audhit]

@audhit What do you think of this fix？

Hey @mzkmnk looks promising. This is exactly what I am looking for. NGRX tool will be complete with this feature to be honest. @rainerhahnekamp please verify and merge it soon if possible and let us know about the new release. Thanks a lot for the great work guys 🙏

[rainerhahnekamp]

Very good work!

I think my biggest suggestion would be this refactoring to withIndexedDB and withLocalStorage().

Other than that, please make sure that the Git History is kept intact (I've added a comment about it).

If there is something unclear, please let me know. I have now a good overview and should be able to respond promptly.

[rainerhahnekamp]

@mzkmnk an additional explanation, via it should be withIndexedDB() and not it is right now.

With the current implementation, we have the IndexedDB service in the bundle, even if it is not used. If that Service only is imported via withIndexedDB() and no one is calling/importing withIndexedDB(), it never ends up in the bundle.

[mzkmnk]

@rainerhahnekamp
I’ve finished making the changes. Please review them!

[mzkmnk]

@rainerhahnekamp

Could you explain this a little bit? Seems I am lacking some knowledge in the way how indexeddb works.

Regarding this topic, I’ve created a demo here, so please give it a try:
https://stackblitz.com/edit/stackblitz-starters-hjuxek6r?file=src%2Findexeddb.service.ts

The cause of the error is that, in IndexedDB, you have to increase the database version when creating a new object store in an existing database. Because of this, if the library were to fix the version internally, we would need to handle version management ourselves, which would make things more complex. For that reason, I’m currently using the same name for both the storeName and the dbName.

I’ve found a better approach than the current one, so I’d like to share it. By fixing the dbName and storeName, and using the IndexedDB keyPath as the key, multiple pieces of data can be stored in a single database. I’ve rebuilt the implementation using this method:
https://stackblitz.com/edit/stackblitz-starters-eb4mwctq?file=src%2Fmain.ts

[audhit]

@rainerhahnekamp looks good to me, can you please kindly test @mzkmnk's solution and let us know if you can merge and release it? It would be a great help in my project. Thanks in advance 🙏

[rainerhahnekamp]

@audhit, we are in the middle of the second set of change requests. We can't merge now.

[rainerhahnekamp]

@mzkmnk

using the IndexedDB keyPath as the key, multiple pieces of data can be stored in a single database

So we are saying we are using the same dbName and dbName for all instances, right? If yes, please implement that 👍

[mzkmnk]

@rainerhahnekamp

So we are saying we are using the same dbName and dbName for all instances,

This one has already been corrected.Please check.

55e81df

[audhit]

@audhit, we are in the middle of the second set of change requests. We can't merge now.

Waiting for it eagerly 🚀 , please kindly make it happen soon if possible 🚀 @rainerhahnekamp .... thanks a lot in advance

[rainerhahnekamp]

@mzkmnk I think we should get that issue with git history sorted out and then merge it.

As I said in a comment before. Maybe it is better to move the with-storage-sync.(spec).ts files back where they were and we'll try to do the "git mv" in a separate branch.

[mzkmnk]

@rainerhahnekamp

I understand. I will move with-storage-sync.(spec).ts back to its original location. Also, regarding c041a49, since it's not really a good fix, would it be okay to revert the changes?

[rainerhahnekamp]

@mzkmnk

I understand. I will move with-storage-sync.(spec).ts back to its original location. Also, regarding c041a49, since it's not really a good fix, would it be okay to revert the changes?

I would leave everything as it is, so no reverting. The only thing is really about keeping the git history intact. That should do it.

[mzkmnk]

@rainerhahnekamp

I've completed moving the with-storage-sync.(spec).ts file.
c45b665

[rainerhahnekamp]

Wonderful @mzkmnk. I'm going to squash and merge it. Congratulations!

[rainerhahnekamp]

@mzkmnk do you want to create the PR which just moves with-storage-sync.*.ts files or should I do that?

[mzkmnk]

@rainerhahnekamp

After this PR is merged, I’ll create a PR to move the with-storage-sync.(spec).ts files.

[audhit]

wowowow...great work guys...now new release and documentation update needs to be done...its soo great and good feeling when someone's request is taken care of. I am so thankful to you guys @mzkmnk and @rainerhahnekamp ... Thank you so much, waiting for it to be released...thanks again :)

[rainerhahnekamp]

Full kudos ot @mzkmnk

[mzkmnk]

@rainerhahnekamp
@audhit
My first OSS development experience was a great memory. Thank you!