getBlockParentsByBlockName: simplify filtering condition #51439
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
|
Size Change: -5 B (0%) Total Size: 1.4 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
|
Flaky tests detected in c18e830. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/5252227794
|
tyxla
reviewed
Jun 13, 2023
Comment on lines
+542
to
+545
| const hasName = Array.isArray( blockName ) | ||
| ? ( name ) => blockName.includes( name ) | ||
| : ( name ) => blockName === name; | ||
| return parents.filter( ( id ) => hasName( getBlockName( state, id ) ) ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really need to redeclare the function on every run? Also, I find the polymorphic behavior of hasName a bit confusing - on one run it will accept an array only, and on another - a string only, while it has the same name. I think this gets behavior exposed better if we have a helper like this:
function hasBlockName( blockNames, name ) {
if ( Array.isArray( blockNames ) ) {
return blockNames.includes( name );
}
return blockNames === name;
}
and then use that inside getBlockParentsByBlockName():
export const getBlockParentsByBlockName = createSelector(
( state, clientId, blockName, ascending = false ) => {
const parents = getBlockParents( state, clientId, ascending );
return parents.filter( ( id ) =>
hasBlockName( blockName, getBlockName( state, id ) )
);
},
( state ) => [ state.blocks.parents ]
);
That way we also won't need to redeclare it on every run. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My intent was to avoid calling Array.isArray on every iteration of the .filter function. blockName is constant through that loop, so why not do the array check only once at the beginning?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. Well, performance-wise, the difference seems negligible, so to me, it was more about readability, but I have no strong feelings either way 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it's more an aesthetic concern rather than real perfomance, as the lists of blockNames and parents are always short. If you have a suggestion that makes the code more readable, and still keeps the single isArray check, I would love to see it!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can think of a few alternative ways, but they still sacrifice readability a bit.
With that in mind, I think your approach is just fine 👍
sethrubenstein
pushed a commit
to pewresearch/gutenberg
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2023
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.
While debugging I noticed that a filtering condition in
getBlockParentsByBlockNameis unnecessarily complex. This PR is replacing the.map.filter.mapchain with one.filtercall.