`remove` has different signature than `get` about store HOT 3 CLOSED

Is this about signatures or behavior? Unless you are using TypeScript, you can send the second argument to remove and it won't hurt or do anything. No need to change the signatures just to be able to send a 2nd arg. You can do that already.

If this is about the behavior and you are hoping to have remove(key, alt) return the alt value when there is no value for the key in the db, that's an interesting idea. Though, i'm not sure what the use case would be. Do you have one?

And of course, you could always implement it as an extension, whether or not it becomes an official feature:

store._.fn('unset', function(key, alt) {
  return this.has(key) ? this.remove(key) : alt;
});

from store.

It was trivial to add support for remove(key, alt). It's in v2.9.0

from store.

If this is about the behavior and you are hoping to have remove(key, alt) return the alt value when there is no value for the key in the db, that's an interesting idea. Though, i'm not sure what the use case would be. Do you have one?

Yeah I guess it's more clear to say the behavior doesn't match. Good point.

My use case is I'm working on an internal spreadsheet tool, and every time a cell changes I put the data to the server. Should it fail, I shuttle it off into local storage and wait a certain number of seconds or piggy back on the next request.

I never know if there are going to be any waiting to hitch a ride, so I need to provide a default. I also need to pull them out of storage, because I don't want to apply them twice.

Here's where I've ended up, with a little helper:

pullFailedChanges() {
    const failures = store.get('network-failures', {});

    // https://github.com/nbubna/store/issues/68
    store.remove('network-failures');

    return failures;
},

I didn't think about writing my own pull or unset extension, that's a great idea.

Thanks for your quick response!

from store.