Add .rx.set method

[philippjfr]

Implements #956

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.12%. Comparing base (b95d476) to head (778a64d).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #957   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.12%   88.12%           
=======================================
  Files           9        9           
  Lines        4857     4859    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits         4280     4282    +2     
  Misses        577      577           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[MarcSkovMadsen]

Nice. Remember to document :-)

[maximlt]

@philippjfr is this ready?

[jbednar]

Are people ok with the linguistic ambiguity between "set" as a collection of items and "set" as "assign"? I find .rx.assign to more obviously indicate the latter meaning, but it's maybe less guessable? I.e. if I think about what I want to do to assign a value, "set" is indeed the word I think of, but then when I encounter .rx.set, I'm not sure which of the two meanings it would be. Happy with whatever other people agree on...

[maximlt]

FWIW I'm fine with the naming of .rx.set (.rx.pipe(set | list | ...) being I believe the correct way to cast).

[MarcSkovMadsen]

I like set because its the term used in React Docs.

[maximlt]

I'm ok with rx.set(). How about you @philippjfr?

[philippjfr]

+1 on keeping .set

[maximlt]

Unrelated test failures.