Lodash: Refactor away from _.compact()
#42438
Merged
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
tyxla
added
[Type] Performance
tyxla
requested review from
aristath,
gziolo,
swissspidy,
jorgefilipecosta,
chad1008,
andrewserong,
ntsekouras and
fabiankaegy
|
Size Change: -5 B (0%) Total Size: 1.25 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
chad1008
approved these changes
Jul 14, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What?
This PR removes the
_.compact()usage completely and deprecates the function.Why?
Lodash is known to unnecessarily inflate the bundle size of packages, and in most cases, it can be replaced with native language functionality. See these for more information and rationale:
@wordpress/api-fetchpackage haslodashas a dependency #39495How?
We're replacing it with the safe replacement
.filter(Boolean)or!! valwith some additional types, to make it TS-friendly. It's pretty safe when we're sure we're calling it on an array, which is always the case with the affected usages.Testing Instructions