-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Lodash: Refactor away from _.unionBy()
#43735
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ module.exports = { | |
'toString', | ||
'trim', | ||
'truncate', | ||
'unionBy', | ||
'uniq', | ||
'uniqBy', | ||
'uniqueId', | ||
|
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
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
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is simple from an implementation perspective, but it is
O(n^2)
...Given that we have 4 uses of this in the same package, perhaps it would be worth having a utility method instead, that checked for uniqueness on insert? It should be sub-quadratic (
O(n log n)
, I believe) if it keeps the keys in an auxiliarySet
and checks that for each item in the arrays upon insertion.What do you think, @tyxla?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't come up with a helper method because this is actually in 2 separate packages -
@wordpress/edit-site
and@wordpress/editor
. So if we had a helper method, we'd have to either move it somewhere and export it - something I'm consciously avoiding with this migration - or, repeat it, which is never cool, especially if the method is more than a couple of lines. Seems like a check on insertion would be a bit more complex than what we came up with here. A simplified version of it would be something like:That being said, I'm open to suggestions for improving the implementation - do you have anything specific in mind.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, I missed the fact that this is two different packages, you're right 🤔
Your new suggestion is still
O(n^2)
, however.The simplest functional approach with sub-quadratic complexity I can come up with is:
This will be
O(n log n)
orO(n)
, depending on whetherSet.prototype.has
isO(log n)
orO(1)
.That said, it is far more involved than your original approach, so I'll leave it to your judgment. Realistically, this is probably not going to be a hot path, so code simplicity probably wins over algorithmic complexity concerns here 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you expressed my thoughts here: we can make this faster, but it's not worth the reduction of readability, so I prefer to go with the simplicity. Not to mention that the
unionBy()
original function appears to have quite the complexity (it's pretty complex), but I haven't spent time going through it and calculating it.