Dedupe owner-is-important warning.

[jimfb]

Dedupe owner-is-important warning.

[jimfb]

cc @zpao @sebmarkbage

[zpao]

Combine with above conditional? The only content in this block is the if. Do we foresee anything else coming in here?

[jimfb]

They are independent concerns, so I'm thinking they should be independent if statements. Especially with the newer if statement (checking both owners) which is more complicated to reason about.

[zpao]

These are fixable line-length warnings. Can you fix them?

[jimfb]

Rrrarw, yeah, ok. This is a perfect example of why the line length warning SUCKS and should be removed.

[sebmarkbage]

Arguably this is a perfect example of why you should avoid statement nesting. :)

On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Jim notifications@github.com wrote:

In src/core/shouldUpdateReactComponent.js:

•              (nextElement._owner != null &&
  

•              nextElement._owner._isOwnerNecessary === false)) {
  

•            if (prevElement._owner != null) {
  

•              prevElement._owner._isOwnerNecessary = true;
  

•            }
  

•            if (nextElement._owner != null) {
  

•              nextElement._owner._isOwnerNecessary = true;
  

•            }
  

•            warning(
  

•              false,
  

•              '<%s /> is being rendered by both %s and %s using the same key ' +
  

•              '(%s) in the same place. Currently, this means that they ' +
  

•              'don\'t preserve state. This behavior should be very rare ' +
  

•              'so we\'re considering deprecating it. Please contact the ' +
  

•              'React team and explain your use case so that we can take that ' +
  

•              'into consideration.',
  

  Rrrarw, yeah, ok. This is a perfect example of why the line length warning SUCKS and should be removed.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[sebmarkbage]

Cool. Looking forward to testing this internally to see what it does to the stats.