Order ids in getClientIdsOfDescendants and getClientIdsWithDescendants selectors#39985
Merged
ZebulanStanphill merged 1 commit intotrunkfrom Apr 4, 2022
Merged
Conversation
ZebulanStanphill
added
[Type] Enhancement
Merged
5 tasks
|
Size Change: -6 B (0%) Total Size: 1.22 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
ZebulanStanphill
force-pushed
the
update/order-client-ids-in-selectors
branch
from
85330cd to
7f0dedc
Compare
ZebulanStanphill
added
the
Needs Technical Feedback
ZebulanStanphill
requested review from
ajitbohra,
ellatrix,
juanmaguitar,
mkaz and
ryanwelcher
as code owners
Contributor
|
A quick audit of current usage of this selector in Gutenberg to understand if any consumer may be affected by a change in ordering:
I haven't spotted any other kind of usage in Gutenberg. Of course, the change could still cause breakage for third parties who have come to rely on the current unspecified behaviour. I'd still like @youknowriad's wise eyes on this. Otherwise, LGTM. |
ZebulanStanphill
removed
the
Needs Technical Feedback
ZebulanStanphill
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 4, 2022
Contributor
cc @getdave in case this is helpful/actionable feedback for the Nav blocks |
Contributor
|
Looking into this quickly, I assume we could, for example, replace gutenberg/packages/block-library/src/navigation/edit/inner-blocks.js Lines 63 to 65 in 60827ac with selectedBlockHasDescendants: !! getBlockCount( [
selectedBlockId,
] )?.length,...using the |
Contributor
|
There's a recent increase in "block selection" (focus) performance metric. See https://codehealth.vercel.app |
Member
Author
|
@youknowriad I've created to #40054 to hopefully counteract any slowdown, though I'm not sure how to reliably test the performance to know if the change actually works. |
ZebulanStanphill
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 7, 2022
ZebulanStanphill
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2022
ZebulanStanphill
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2022
ZebulanStanphill
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2022
ZebulanStanphill
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 28, 2022
ZebulanStanphill
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 4, 2022
ZebulanStanphill
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2022
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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 changes the
getClientIdsOfDescendantsandgetClientIdsWithDescendantsselectors so that the client ids they return are always ordered according to the order that the blocks actually appear in the post.Why?
See #29739 (comment). This would greatly simplify the Table of Contents block implementation.
How?
Testing Instructions
🤷♂ I guess see if the tests pass?