[MikeOfAu]

Answers to your three points:

  - I'm wondering if re-frame-test might help? 
  - That ship has sailed a long time ago. And, even if it hadn't, I diagree that symbols would be better. 
  - I'm unfamiliar with angular's code. The Resources section lists larger apps which you can inspect.

[pinchhit]

I'll try re-frame-test, thanks! If it doesn't do something like `(with-redefs [re-frame.db/app-db (reagent/atom {})] ...)` it is still open to this bug, though. Because the call to `dispatch` happens inside of a callback the test library has no way to signal that future dispatches coming from a different function context should not be put on the same queue.

It'd be hard to change that aspect of the API now, and I wouldn't recommend you do it; but right now, editor completion and new-user understanding is just better on the reagent side. They do this:

    (defn assoc-foo [db bar]
      (assoc db :foo bar))
    
    (defn fetch-new-foo [db bar]
      (go
        (let [bar (<! (get-bar)]
          (swap! db assoc-foo bar))))
    
    (swap! db assoc-foo bar)
    (fetch-new-foo db bar)

whereas re-frame would make you do this:

    (re-frame/reg-event-db
      ::assoc-foo
      (fn [db [_ bar]]
        (assoc db :foo bar)))
    
    (re-frame/reg-fx
      ::pull-from-channel
      (fn [{:keys [f event]}]
        (go
          (let [resp (<! (f))]
            (re-frame/dispatch (conj event resp))))))
    
    (re-frame/reg-event-fx
      ::fetch-new-foo
      (fn [_ _]
        {:pull-from-channel {:f get-bar
                             :event [::assoc-foo]}}))
    
    (dispatch [::assoc-foo bar])
    (dispatch [::fetch-new-foo])

The first one has a lot going for it; swap! is part of the standard library, has a bunch of docs for free, etc.; any clojure editor will pick up on the use of assoc-foo as a function and give you arity warnings if you pass too many parameters, etc.

I've looked at the larger apps - the way I've seen people be most successful if if they have a child namespace with events, subs, & views laid out on a per namespace basis (`my-ns.events, my-ns.subs, my-other-ns.events, my-other-ns.subs`.) Partially due to the tone the docs take, there's always some pushback as to whether that's the re-frame way to do things, and I'd love to just be able to avoid that whole conversation in the future.