Prettier would do this anyway, but it’s separated out for a more
reviewable diff. Generated by ESLint.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
Prettier would do this anyway, but it’s separated out for a more
reviewable diff. Generated by ESLint.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
We have changed our all instances of list_render to use
simplebar and thus, we will now use simplebar container
to track scroll event for all the lists created by
list_render.
This fixes the bug of new subscribers not rendering on
scrolling at the end of subscriber list in stream settings
and similar bug in some other lists also.
This commit also removes scroll_util.get_list_scrolling_container
function as this is no longer used.
Fixes#15637.
Previously, we had to fiddle with the generated HTML to update
individual values. Now, we can simply ask the widget to rerender
the row that we updated.
This is done by passing an html_selector function that returns
a selector for the rendered item.
If:
- we do not provide html_selector function
- item is not currently rendered
- new html is not a string.
then the render_item() call is a noop.
We want to move toward having list consumers
pass us in a list of ids that we hydrate later
in the process. This should help live-update
scenarios. The next commit will describe the
benefits in a bit more detail, using the
concrete example of our bot settings table
in the org settings.
A slightly longer-term goal here is to be
able to ask `list_render` to re-render a particular
id, and this moves us closer to that. But even
before that, this change should eliminate a class
of bugs dealing with stale data, such as when
you manually patch a list (with direct jQuery
hacks) but then later go to sort/filter the rows.
We will now re-hydrate the items in those scenarios.
In passing, we also get coverage for
list_render.get.
This test also implicitly demonstrates that
you can call `widget.sort` directly from some
external event handler; in other words, you
are not locked into the widget's conventions
for setting up <th> tags.
The check here was too late, and it should
have given a blueslip error. We obviously
don't expect these errors at runtime; this
is a convenience for developers creating
new widgets.
This covers how we wire up the filter, and it
covers using `filterer` instead of `predicate`.
I also go away from the strange length-based
predicate that I had in the original test.
The intention behind the original test was
to show that filters could be more than simple
string-matching, but that was just a strange
way to demonstrate it.
We already know which list widget a `<th>`
tag is associated with when we set up the
event handler, so it's silly to read data
from the DOM to find that widget again
when the handler runs.
This commit eliminates a whole class of possible
errors and busy work.
For some widgets we now avoid duplicate redraw
events from this old pattern:
widget = list_render.create(..., {
}).init();
widget.sort(...);
The above code was wasteful and possibly
flicker-y due to the fact that `init` and
`sort` both render.
Now we do this:
widget = list_render.create(..., {
init_sort: [...],
});
For other widgets we just clean up the need
to call `init()` right after `create()`.
We also allow widgets to pass in `sort_fields`
during initialization (since you may want to
have `init_sort` use a custom sort before the
first render.)
Finally, we make the second and third calls
eliminate the prior updates from the previous
widget. This can prevent strange bugs with
double-reversing columns (although that's
been prevented in a better way with a recent
commit), as well as avoiding double work
with sorting.
This code has always been kind of convoluted
and buggy, starting with the first
sorting-related commit, which put filtering
before sorting for some reason:
3706e2c6ba
This should fix bugs like the fact that
changing filter text would not respect
reversed sorts.
Now the scheme is simple:
- external UI actions set `meta` values like
filter_value, reverse_mode, and
sorting_function, as needed, through
simple setters
- use `hard_redraw` to do a redraw and
trigger external actions
- all filtering/sorting/reverse logic on
the *data* happens in a single, simple
function called `filter_and_sort`
We put this in `scroll_util` to make it more likely
we will eventually unify this with other scrolling
logic. (A big piece to move is ui.get_scroll_element,
but that's for another PR.)
And then the other tactical advantage is that we get
100% line coverage on it.
I changed the warning to an error, since I don't
think we ever expect scrolling at the `body` level,
and I don't bother with the preview node.
I pushed this risk commit to the end of
a PR that had a bunch of harmless prep
commits at the front, and I didn't make
it clear enough that the last commit (this
one) hadn't been tested thoroughly.
For the list_render widget, we can simplify
the intialization pretty easily (avoid
extra sorts, for example), but the cache aspects
are still tricky on subsequent calls.
For some widgets we now avoid duplicate redraw
events from this old pattern:
widget = list_render.create(..., {
}).init();
widget.sort(...);
The above code was wasteful and possibly
flicker-y due to the fact that `init` and
`sort` both render.
Now we do this:
widget = list_render.create(..., {
init_sort: [...],
});
For other widgets we just clean up the need
to call `init()` right after `create()`.
We also allow widgets to pass in `sort_fields`
during initialization (since you may want to
have `init_sort` use a custom sort before the
first render.)
The use case for this are small or fixed tables, which do not need
filtering support. Thus we are able to not include the unnecessary
search input inside the html parent container.
It is not used at present, but will be required when we refactor
the settings pages.
We also split out exports.validate_filter function for
unit testing the above condition.
This is relatively unobtrusive, and we don't send
anything to the server.
But any user can now enter blueslip.timings in the
console to see a map of how long things take in
milliseconds. We only record one timing per
event label (i.e. the most recent).
It's pretty easy to test this by just clicking
around. For 300 users/streams most things are
fast except for:
- initialize_everything
- manage streams (render_subscriptions)
Both do lots of nontrivial work, although
"manage streams" is a bit surprising, since
we're only measuring how long to build the
HTML from the templates (whereas the real
time is probably browser rendering costs).
The filter "callback" was only a "callback" in the
most general sense of the word.
It's just a filter predicate that returns a bool.
This is to prepare for another filtering option,
where the caller can filter the whole list
themselves. I haven't figured out what I will name
the new option yet, but I know I want to make the
two options have specific names.
We are already providing callbacks everywhere, so
it would be nice to eliminate some dead code.
This also speeds things up ever so slightly (no
longer type-checking the option every time through
the loop).
We also split out exports.filter to make unit testing
easier. The function seems kinda silly now, being so
small, but I hope to add another filtering option soon.
This commit was originally automatically generated using `tools/lint
--only=eslint --fix`. It was then modified by tabbott to contain only
changes to a set of files that are unlikely to result in significant
merge conflicts with any open pull request, excluding about 20 files.
His plan is to merge the remaining changes with more precise care,
potentially involving merging parts of conflicting pull requests
before running the `eslint --fix` operation.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
The alphabetic sorting of lists in the User/Organization settings was
changed in fa0a5ec to be case insensitive.
This commit makes changes to the list_render.js test to verify that the
sorting of these lists is indeed case insensitive.
This run_test helper sets up a convention that allows
us to give really short tracebacks for errors, and
eventually we can have more control over running
individual tests. (The latter goal has some
complications, since we often intentionally leak
setup in tests.)
Anders Kaseorg
Aman Agrawal
Rohitt Vashishtha
Steve Howell
Steve Howell
Ryan Rehman
Anders Kaseorg
Thomas Ip
Vinit Singh
Shubham Dhama
Tim Abbott