Lodash: Refactor away from _.uniq()
#43330
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] Build Tooling
tyxla
requested review from
sgomes,
aristath,
gziolo,
swissspidy,
jorgefilipecosta,
chad1008,
ntsekouras and
fabiankaegy
tyxla
requested review from
ajitbohra,
ntwb,
nerrad and
ellatrix
as code owners
gziolo
reviewed
Aug 17, 2022
| @@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ export const BlockSwitcherDropdownMenu = ( { clientIds, blocks } ) => { | |||
| _icon = blockInformation?.icon; // Take into account active block variations. | |||
| } else { | |||
| const isSelectionOfSameType = | |||
| uniq( blocks.map( ( { name } ) => name ) ).length === 1; | |||
| [ ...new Set( blocks.map( ( { name } ) => name ) ) ] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good call, updated in ad02c59
gziolo
reviewed
Aug 17, 2022
| .map( ( label ) => LABEL_TYPE_MAPPING[ label ] ) | ||
| ); | ||
| return [ | ||
| ...new Set( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out of curiosity, is there any difference between spreading the Set and using Array.from?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good question! I guess the answer has a few different angles:
- Performance - they're almost equal, spreading being a bit faster: https://jsben.ch/5lKjg
- Functionality - they work the same way when working with iterables (which
Sets are). - Transpilation - the end result will differ slightly, but that would matter if this code was transpiled (which it isn't).
Unless you have strong feelings, I'd prefer to use spread as it's way more common around the codebase.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Safari, macOS, so I guess it depends but it's nearly the same.
I don't have any objections to using spread here. In general, both approaches discussed are less readable than uniq. It isn't immediately obvious that Set is used to remove duplicates.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It isn't immediately obvious that
Setis used to remove duplicates.
I don't know if I agree with that; [ ...new Set() ] is a pretty common idiom these days.
|
Size Change: -6 B (0%) Total Size: 1.24 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
gziolo
approved these changes
Aug 17, 2022
|
@tyxla, you are doing a great job refactoring all packages to remove |
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
_.uniq()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?
_.uniq( arr )is easily replaced by native[ ...new Set( arr ) ].Testing Instructions
npm run other:changelog.npm run docs:gen.