Block editor: use vanilla JS Array.prototype.includes instead of Lodash #21063
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ZebulanStanphill
added
[Type] Code Quality
|
Size Change: -24 B (0%) Total Size: 1.13 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
|
The test failures are because I'm using optional chaining. This PR is blocked by #19952. |
2 tasks
ZebulanStanphill
added
the
[Status] Blocked
2 tasks
|
@ZebulanStanphill Any reason it wouldn't work to land all the instances except the one which uses optional chaining? Looks like there's only one. |
|
@chrisvanpatten That's a good point! I've removed that instance from this PR so this can get merged sooner. |
|
I had to undo another instance because apparently But anyway, all tests are passing now for this PR! |
ZebulanStanphill
removed
the
[Status] Blocked
|
Forgot to remove the "Blocked" label until now. This PR is ready for review. |
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
from
e55d40d
to
b6e547e
Compare
|
Resolved merge conflicts. |
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7f3b7c7
to
76585d1
Compare
ZebulanStanphill
requested review from
ajitbohra,
chrisvanpatten and
mkaz
as code owners
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
from
342d758
to
089a96a
Compare
docs/designers-developers/developers/data/data-core-block-editor.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Our tooling now supports optional chaining, so I brought back the changes that were using that. |
|
Thanks for working on it. I like the idea in general but I have some reservations:
Any ideas how yo encourage first the usage of native JS? |
|
@gziolo Regarding the discouraging of Lodash use, here are two ideas:
And yeah, I am somewhat relying on the idea that TypeScript integration will continue to improve as it has been lately. (See #18838.) |
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
from
089a96a
to
fe97247
Compare
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
from
fe97247
to
11c3227
Compare
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
3 times, most recently
from
e19f64a
to
91658de
Compare
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
from
91658de
to
7828bfb
Compare
ZebulanStanphill
changed the title
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f471ba2
to
86c0095
Compare
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
from
86c0095
to
2d78368
Compare
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
from
2d78368
to
d97ec7d
Compare
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
from
d97ec7d
to
4e69fd8
Compare
mkaz
approved these changes
Jul 1, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The implementation looks right, I share the same concern as @gziolo that it is not truly compatible with lodash, because if a null is passed to lodash includes() it will return false without error, but trying to use the native Array.includes() function will error if called from a null value.
It looks like the variables that might be null use the new ?. syntax that should handle it, and the majority of updates look like the variable should be defined.
Testing on the branch didn't reveal anything, but hard to test the uses cases here.
With all that, I give it a 👍
ZebulanStanphill
deleted the
update/block-editor-use-vanilla-array-includes
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
See title. In my testing, the vanilla method is slightly faster, and I find it easier to comprehend when reading the code. It also has stronger typing, making it better for pushing the codebase closer to complete type checking.
As it turns out,
lodash.includesis used a lot in the code, so to make reviewing and catching mistakes easier, I'm doing one package at a time.The long-term goal is to reduce
lodashusage in cases where a standard JS function works just as well or better, which should reduce our packages' bundle sizes for 3rd parties using them. This will also increase clarity by making nullish value handling more explicit, and avoiding the use of external libraries when simple equivalents exist in standard JS.