Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add warning when reading from event which has been returned to the pool #5940

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 18, 2016

Conversation

kentcdodds
Copy link

This is a WIP. I just want to make sure that I'm headed in the right direction for solving #5939

I'm not certain where the logic for deconstructing SyntheticEvents occurs. My guess is it's an abstraction that utilizes the EventInterface.

Also, what's the proper way to reference NODE_ENV for doing this only in development mode.

Thank you for helping a newbie to the codebase :-)

@gaearon
Copy link
Collaborator

gaearon commented Jan 29, 2016

Rather than throw, I think it should generate a warning.
Here is a another work-in-progress PR you can use as a reference: #5744

@gaearon
Copy link
Collaborator

gaearon commented Jan 29, 2016

I think these lines might be relevant:

for (var propName in Interface) {
this[propName] = null;
}

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Author

Rather than throw, I think it should generate a warning.

Ah, yes, that's right. Thanks for the reference 👍

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

@kentcdodds updated the pull request.

expect(console.error.calls.length).toBe(1);
expect(console.error.argsForCall[0][0]).toBe(
'Warning: This synthetic event is reused for performance reasons. If ' +
'you\'re seeing this, you\'re accessing a propertie on a ' +
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"property" :)

@zpao
Copy link
Member

zpao commented Jan 29, 2016

https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/src/shared/utils/PooledClass.js#L102-L111 is another place to look. That's what get's run to add pooling to a class, generating a new class with a static release method which calls the destructor (as @gaearon linked to).

@gaearon
Copy link
Collaborator

gaearon commented Jan 29, 2016

Another thing is you might want to put the warning code into a “devtool” which is a new work-in-progress API for doing dev-only things. See 251d6c3 and #5590 for inspiration.

@zpao
Copy link
Member

zpao commented Jan 29, 2016

Might be tricky as a "devtool" since you need to add getters, which doesn't fit so well into the devtool event framework (at least as I understand it). Definitely work looking into though

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Author

Updated. This is technically working, but there are some potential issues that I'll add some inline comments about.

it('should warn if the synthetic event has been released when calling `preventDefault`', function() {
spyOn(console, 'error');
var syntheticEvent = createEvent({});
SyntheticEvent.release(syntheticEvent);
syntheticEvent.preventDefault();
expect(console.error.calls.length).toBe(1);
expect(console.error.argsForCall[0][0]).toBe(
expect(console.error.calls.length).toBe(3); // once each for setting `defaultPrevented`, accessing `nativeEvent`, and accessing `preventDefault`
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When calling preventDefault, we set the defaultPrevented access the nativeEvent properties. This leads to three warnings even if the developer only called preventDefault.

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Author

On possible suggestion is to set a property on the event called _nullified or _released and check for that before trying to access any properties.

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

@kentcdodds updated the pull request.

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Author

Heh... Still got some work on this, I've got quite a few failing tests in the full test suite and some odd behavior in the stopPropogation test (looks like console.error is called 14 times with my warning for some reason).

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Author

I think the problem is that when we restore an event, we need to re-defineProperty the object (only in __DEV__) otherwise it will run through my getter/setter and log the warning.

Let me know if that sounds wrong. I'll push what I've got so far for review and keep working on it

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

@kentcdodds updated the pull request.

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Author

Great. I'm ready for feedback now. All tests are passing. I have a linting question I'll add as an inline comment. I'm not solid on this approach, so definitely willing to make changes to how things work or the style of the code. 👍

warning(
warningCondition,
'This synthetic event is reused for performance reasons. If you\'re ' +
'seeing this, you\'re setting property `' + propName + '` on a ' +
Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm getting a linting error:

190:13  error  The second argument to warning must be a string literal  react-internal/warning-and-invariant-args

I think it's because of this line. Is there a reason I can't provide the propName here? I feel like it would be useful to have it.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps you're supposed to use %s there. Check out other warnings in the codebase.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd add a note about persist() just before the link so the user doesn't overlook the solution they likely need.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

@kentcdodds updated the pull request.

* These are additional properties not in the EventInterface
* which are nulled when destructoring a syntheticEvent instance
*/
var otherNullableProps = ['dispatchConfig', '_targetInst', 'nativeEvent'];
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

dispatchConfig and _targetInst are both implementation details and are considered private fields.
I think we don't have to warn on accessing those.

This leaves us with nativeEvent which can be hardcoded as a special case below.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@@ -195,3 +198,44 @@ SyntheticEvent.augmentClass = function(Class, Interface) {
PooledClass.addPoolingTo(SyntheticEvent, PooledClass.fourArgumentPooler);

module.exports = SyntheticEvent;


// Utility functions
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: I don't think this comment is necessary. Do we use similar comments in the codebase?

@gaearon
Copy link
Collaborator

gaearon commented Jan 30, 2016

At this point I’ve given all feedback I could give, and what I see so far looks good, apart from minor nits above. Let’s wait for the maintainers to give their further comments. Thank you for contributing!

cc @jimfb

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

@kentcdodds updated the pull request.

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

@kentcdodds updated the pull request.

@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ describe('SyntheticEvent', function() {
});

it('should be nullified if the synthetic event has called destructor', function() {
spyOn(console, 'error'); // accessing properties on destructored events logs warnings (tested elsewhere)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should still assert the warnings here. The reason being that we want to know if we start emitting some unexpected warnings. Right now, this test just swallows all warnings.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That make sense. I felt odd spying on it and not asserting anything. Will do.

@jimfb
Copy link
Contributor

jimfb commented Feb 11, 2016

@kentcdodds Overall, this looks great to me. A couple of nitpicks. Also, I think it would be good to add an "integration" test (ie. render a component, simulate a click event, save the event, read from the event at the end of the test, and assert the warning fires). Just to sanity check that things are working.

Otherwise, I think we're good to merge.

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Author

Happy to write the integration test. I haven't looked into how to do that yet, but I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction to do that :-) Thanks for the feedback!

@jimfb
Copy link
Contributor

jimfb commented Feb 11, 2016

@kentcdodds A reasonable example is in ReactServerRendering-test.js, we have a test called "should have the correct mounting behavior". Specifically, the most interesting line is: ReactTestUtils.Simulate.click(ReactDOM.findDOMNode(instance.refs.span));

A test would probably look something like this:

var event = null;
var instance = ReactDOM.render(<div onClick={function(e){event = e;}} />);
ReactTestUtils.Simulate.click(ReactDOM.findDOMNode(instance));`
// TODO: assert warnings.length===0
event.nativeEvent;
// TODO: assert warnings.length===1
// TODO: assert warnings[0].contanis("error message text");

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

@kentcdodds updated the pull request.

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Author

Hi @jimfb. Sorry this took a bit. I've updated the tests and added an integration test as you suggested. I think it's solid. One thing that I did change in response to your comments is I combined two tests. When I asserted the console output in the one test, I realized that it was pretty much identical to another. So I just merged the two into one. Let me know if you'd like to see that change.

Thanks for this opportunity to contribute! :D

@jimfb
Copy link
Contributor

jimfb commented Feb 18, 2016

@kentcdodds This all looks good to me, thanks! But it looks like we broke lint (you can run locally with npm run lint or view the output here: https://travis-ci.org/facebook/react/jobs/109724188). Just fix the lint errors and do a "git commit --amend", and we should be good to go.

@jimfb jimfb added this to the 0.15 milestone Feb 18, 2016
@jimfb jimfb self-assigned this Feb 18, 2016
@kentcdodds
Copy link
Author

(-‸ლ) thanks! The PR has been updated to fix linting.

Looking forward to my next opportunity to contribute ⭐

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link

@kentcdodds updated the pull request.

jimfb added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 18, 2016
Add warning when reading from event which has been returned to the pool
@jimfb jimfb merged commit e8e56e8 into facebook:master Feb 18, 2016
@jimfb
Copy link
Contributor

jimfb commented Feb 18, 2016

Thanks @kentcdodds!

@kentcdodds
Copy link
Author

🎉 🎊

@kentcdodds kentcdodds deleted the pr/warn-event-pool-access branch February 18, 2016 06:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants