Making array order optional

[AlexisAnzieu]

Hey! Thanks for this excellent library!
In one of my use case, I would need to compare two objects and mark them as equals no matter if the elements in their arrays are not in the same order.
eg:

const objectA = {
          id: 54,
          user: {
            name: "joe",
           member: true,
          hobbies: ["golf", "football"],
            age: 66,
         },
  }

const objectB = {
        id: 54,
        user: {
            name: "joe",
           member: true,
           hobbies: [ "football", "golf"],
            age: 66,
        },
  }
  
  // Be marked as equal

Would it be possible to add this kind of option in the API? Thanks a lot!

[DoneDeal0]

Hi @AlexisAnzieu ,

Thanks for your interest in Superdiff!

I hesitated before adding such an option, because it slows the diff down a little bit. But we're talking about less than 10ms on thousands of objects, so I guess it's fine.

Anyways, getObjectDiff() now accept a facultative options parameter:

{
  discardArrayOrder?: boolean // false by default
}

If discardArrayOrder is set to true, ["hello", "world"] and ["world", "hello"] will be considered as equal, because the two arrays have the same value, just not in the same order.

Does it solve your issue?

[AlexisAnzieu]

Yes sounds perfect, thank you!
By testing it a bit further I also noticed an odd behavior:

const a = {
    "boolean": false,
}

getObjectDiff(a, a)
 // output "updated"


const b = {
    "boolean": true,
}

getObjectDiff(b, b)
 // output "equal"

It seems that a condition is failing somewhere 🤔

[AlexisAnzieu]

it may come from there. Maybe
if (!!!previousValue && typeof previousValue !== 'boolean') instead?

[DoneDeal0]

There is always an edgecase despite all the tests^^. Well spotted! I'send the fix within 48 hours.

[DoneDeal0]

Thank you again for spotting this error. The equality check was actually failing for all falsy values (undefined, null, false), in the main properties, but also in the subproperties diff. I can't believe I missed it.

The issue is now fixed (see #6 ), with related tests. The fix has been deployed in v1.0.7.

Please let me know if all's good for you.

[AlexisAnzieu]

All good! Thanks a lot 👌