fix(docs): use hydration utilities from core

[Andrey-Bazhanov]

No description provided.

[vercel]

This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more).
To see the status of your deployment, click below or on the icon next to each commit.

🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/tannerlinsley/react-query/64vHfSzd6sHK2uMmA1WTehusixAR
✅ Preview: https://react-query-git-fork-andrey-bazhanov-master-tannerlinsley.vercel.app

[codesandbox-ci]

This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox.

To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA.

Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit d94e41d:

Sandbox	Source
tannerlinsley/react-query: basic	Configuration
tannerlinsley/react-query: basic-typescript	Configuration

[TkDodo]

@Ephem after moving the hydration to the core, what's the preferred way of importing the hydration utils:

import { Hydrate } from 'react-query/hydration'
import { Hydrate } from 'react-query'

I guess it's the latter, and we only kept the /hydration imports for backwards compatibility, right?

[Andrey-Bazhanov]

@TkDodo according to this, I think yes https://github.com/tannerlinsley/react-query/blob/master/src/hydration/index.ts

[Ephem]

Yes, exactly!

I was thinking about when would be a good time to update the docs, if we do it right now and people read them but are not on the latest version yet (pretty likely) I thought maybe that would be confusing?

On the other hand, maybe we should update them right away to not lead people down a later deprecated track. If we do, should we add a disclaimer about the old way and mention the version it got moved to core maybe?

[TkDodo]

If we do, should we add a disclaimer about the old way and mention the version it got moved to core maybe?

yes, that sounds like a good idea. Also, I think this split in the API Reference is now not needed anymore, and probably not a good idea either:

I think we should have one page there called Hydration that shows the new exports with the disclaimer that old exports still exist. What do you think please?

[Ephem]

I dont have strong opinions on that really. Either we group them on a single page or just remove the hydration/-prefix but keep separate pages.

Looks like the rest of the docs under API are atomic, in that every separate function/class has their own page. I guess that makes a function easy to look up, but that should be easy even if they are grouped? 🤷

[TkDodo]

yes, the search will work as well if we group it and user headers. for example, not every method of the queryClient has its own page, so why should hydrate and dehydrate have one 🤷 . So I'm more for the grouping

[Ephem]

Yeah, I agree. I guess technically the queryClient methods are on a class which the hydrate stuff is not, but I don't think that's an important distinction. Makes sense to me to group it.

[Andrey-Bazhanov]

@TkDodo @Ephem I grouped hydration pages into single page and put notice about versions. Please take a look.

[tannerlinsley]

🎉 This PR is included in version 3.24.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀