Mark Erikson
Mark Erikson
The internal implementation definitely changed, but all the existing tests are passing. Can you post an example project that reproduces the issue, and ideally one that shows both 4.0 and...
Huh, that's _very_ surprising. I'm assuming you didn't configure any of these selectors for a larger cache size. There's specific handling internally for a cache size of 1, and I...
Not sure what you're asking - clarify?
Yeah, I had to switch to that `NOT_FOUND` sentinel value specifically to disambiguate with `undefined` so that selectors could store that as a result.
No, that's purely an internal thing so that the logic above it can confirm that "the cache did not find a match for the key we're checking against".
Nope. Each selector is its own separate cache - there's nothing global. It kinda sounds like it's less of a "memory leak" per se, and more just "caching". It sounds...
Most of that looks like `re-reselect` internals, tbh. Does any of this happen with just `reselect` by itself, or only with `re-reselect`?
@kelly-tock fwiw the thing that would help the most is a sandbox that specifically replicates what you're seeing here.
@kelly-tock Can you put together a CodeSandbox or repo that demonstrates this? I really need something I can try to dig into and profile myself.
I'd really like to look at this sometime in the next few days. Could you please put together a CodeSandbox or a Github repo that fully demonstrates the issue happening?...