Lodash: Remove remaining Lodash from @wordpress/components package
#49794
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
Mamaduka,
sgomes,
mirka,
aristath,
gziolo,
swissspidy,
ciampo,
jd-alexander,
geriux,
chad1008,
fluiddot,
ntsekouras and
fabiankaegy
|
Size Change: 0 B Total Size: 1.37 MB ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
tyxla
commented
Apr 13, 2023
| @@ -68,7 +68,6 @@ | |||
| "gradient-parser": "^0.1.5", | |||
| "highlight-words-core": "^1.2.2", | |||
| "is-plain-object": "^5.0.0", | |||
| "lodash": "^4.17.21", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lodash is no longer bundled for the web build since it was only used for mobile components, but in any case it's nice to see it gone from one of our largest packages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this the reason why there are no bundle size differences for this PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes 😉 You can see the bundle size reduction and Lodash removal when we removed the last non-mobile bits:
- Last bundle that contains Lodash: https://bundlephobia.com/package/@wordpress/components@23.5.0
- First bundle that no longer contains Lodash: https://bundlephobia.com/package/@wordpress/components@23.6.0
| @@ -273,8 +272,8 @@ class BottomSheetCell extends Component { | |||
| return accessibilityLabel || label; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if ( isEmpty( value ) ) { | |||
| return isEmpty( help ) | |||
| if ( ! value ) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As you can see below, value is used as a string, therefore we can safely use it as a string in the if(), simplifying the condition.
| @@ -288,7 +287,7 @@ class BottomSheetCell extends Component { | |||
| help | |||
| ); | |||
| } | |||
| return isEmpty( help ) | |||
| return ! help | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As you can see above and below, help is used as a string, therefore we can safely use it as a string in the if(), simplifying the condition.
| @@ -323,7 +322,7 @@ class BottomSheetCell extends Component { | |||
| const opacity = | |||
| activeOpacity !== undefined | |||
| ? activeOpacity | |||
| : get( platformStyles, 'activeOpacity.opacity' ); | |||
| : platformStyles.activeOpacity?.opacity; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
platformStyles is already being used as an object in this component, so using platformStyles.activeOpacity is safe. We're keeping the optional chaining for .opacity since it is not certain that it will exist.
packages/components/CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
Comment on lines
10
to
24
| - `BottomSheetCell`: Refactor away from Lodash (mobile) ([#49794](https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/49794)). | ||
| - `parseStylesVariables()`: Refactor away from Lodash (mobile) ([#49794](https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/49794)). | ||
| - Remove Lodash dependency from components package ([#49794](https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/pull/49794)). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're adding 3 separate entries since we're touching 2 distinct components and removing a dependency.
| const getValueFromObjectPath = ( object, path ) => { | ||
| let value = object; | ||
| path.forEach( ( fieldName ) => { | ||
| value = value?.[ fieldName ]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're abstracting to a separate function because this is needed twice in this component and because it IMHO improves readability.
Optional chaining here will help us handle nullish values both at the first level and nested inside objects or arrays, making the function essentially as save as get() was.
| @@ -231,11 +246,11 @@ export function parseStylesVariables( styles, mappedValues, customValues ) { | |||
| customValuesData | |||
| ) | |||
| ) { | |||
| return get( customValuesData, path ); | |||
| return getValueFromObjectPath( customValuesData, path ); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is as safe as get() was, because getValueFromObjectPath() will handle nullish values.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Check for camelcase properties. | ||
| return get( customValuesData, [ | ||
| return getValueFromObjectPath( customValuesData, [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is as safe as get() was, because getValueFromObjectPath() will handle nullish values.
ntsekouras
approved these changes
Apr 13, 2023
aristath
approved these changes
Apr 18, 2023
tyxla
force-pushed
the
remove/lodash-get-components
branch
from
acfd83a
to
280b4e9
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 remaining Lodash from the
@wordpress/componentspackage. There were just a couple of straightforward usages in mobile components.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 using direct access with optional chaining as an alternative. We're extracting to a separate module-specific function to avoid repetition and increase clarity.
Testing Instructions