Lodash: Refactor away from _.isObject()
#42336
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] Performance
tyxla
requested review from
mirka,
aristath,
gziolo,
swissspidy,
ciampo,
jorgefilipecosta,
chad1008,
andrewserong,
ntsekouras and
fabiankaegy
tyxla
requested review from
ajitbohra,
ryanwelcher,
ellatrix and
nerrad
as code owners
|
Size Change: +10 B (0%) Total Size: 1.25 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
tyxla
force-pushed
the
remove/lodash-is-object
branch
from
87244df
to
1cd8a69
Compare
ciampo
reviewed
Jul 12, 2022
Comment on lines
+134
to
+136
| function isObject( object ) { | ||
| return object !== null && typeof object === 'object'; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On which basis did we decide when to refactor the code "inline" vs creating a isObject utility function?
Given the subtlety of this check (which includes the null edge case), I'm thinking if it would be better to always refactor the logic to a separate isObject function?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On which basis do we decided when to refactor the code "inline" vs creating a isObject utility function?
Depending on the number of usages in a file, essentially. More than a couple of usages makes it easier and less repetitive to have a separate function.
Given the subtlety of this check (which includes the null edge case), I'm thinking if it would be better to always refactor the logic to a separate isObject function?
I'd disagree, while it adds verbosity, I don't see why we'd always want to keep it a separate function. I think it's enough that we are specifically explicitly excluding the null case, and it's a JavaScript quirk, so not much we can do about it.
|
Thanks for the feedback, @ciampo 😉 makes a lot of sense to go through those.
That's fair, however:
Yes, thanks for bringing that up. I've actually manually audited these instances and saw that we never seek to invoke the results anywhere. I think this demonstrates one of the big problems with Lodash - concealing behavior, and sometimes even illogical behavior. Who could guess that |
tyxla
force-pushed
the
remove/lodash-is-object
branch
from
1cd8a69
to
c827208
Compare
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
_.isObject()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?
We're replacing it with the safe replacement
typeof === 'object'ortypeof !== 'object', plus checking for thenullcase, becausetypeof nullisobjectas well.Testing Instructions