Sites: Don't bind selectors to state

[mcsf]

Part of #14024

This PR seeks to remove

export default connect(
  ( state ) => ( {
    isSiteUpgradeable: isSiteUpgradeable.bind( null, state ),
  } )
)( Sites );

from my-sites/sites. @tyxla: You've been working a lot with Jetpack and capabilities, do you have recommendations on how to approach this? Sites passes a filter function prop to SiteSelector, which calls it to filter all site objects. How wrong would it be to inspect the site objects instead of calling the selector?

[matticbot]

Test live: https://calypso.live/?branch=remove/sites-selector-state-binding

[tyxla]

@mcsf I'm thinking we can add isUpgradeable as a computed prop. During the sites-list migration we've been trying to keep the computed props as less as possible, so I think we can add this one. We're already doing that for is_previewable anyway.

[mcsf]

@tyxla: sounds like a good idea. Would you be interested in picking it up, or should I?

[tyxla]

Sure, @mcsf, I've added a couple of commits to tackle that 👍

[mcsf]

Woot! Thanks!

[mcsf]

I can't formally approve this PR, since I created it, but LGTM!. :)

[tyxla]

Well, let's request some more 👀 here then 😉

[gwwar]

I'm no longer able to search for wpcom sites that have upgrades, or can be upgraded. For example when visiting http://calypso.localhost:3000/plans

[tyxla]

@gwwar good catch there!

In 1555eff I've applied a fix for that will allow to also include sites for which we can't determine whether they're upgradeable. Feel free to give the PR another try. Thanks!

[gwwar]

This does the trick, but I wonder if we could be a bit more clear with:

return ! site.isJetpack || site.isSiteUpgradable;

[tyxla]

Sure, I'd go that way, but I was wondering: is there a case where upgradeable state can't be determined for a WordPress.com site? For example, if a site request fails to complete.

[gwwar]

What does state look like in that case? I'd also be fine with the above and adding a clarifying comment so folks don't try and simplify the check.

[tyxla]

After further consideration, I've decided to go with your suggestion here, it makes it much more readable than what I suggested.

[tyxla]

@mcsf that one is ready to go; do you want to deploy it, or should I? 😉

[mcsf]

@tyxla I feel you should do the honors, since I merely opened the PR and you did all the work :)