refactor: small readability improvements #5748
Conversation
manniL
changed the title
| @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ function mapTransitions(Components, to, from) { | |||
|
|
|||
| async function loadAsyncComponents(to, from, next) { | |||
| // Check if route path changed (this._pathChanged), only if the page is not an error (for validate()) | |||
| this._pathChanged = !!app.nuxt.err || from.path !== to.path | |||
| this._pathChanged = Boolean(app.nuxt.err) || from.path !== to.path | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
neat: If we swipe conditions, we can prevent unnecessary Boolean cast where from.path !== to.path
| this._pathChanged = Boolean(app.nuxt.err) || from.path !== to.path | |
| this._pathChanged = from.path !== to.path || Boolean(app.nuxt.err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you mean this?
| this._pathChanged = Boolean(app.nuxt.err) || from.path !== to.path | |
| this._pathChanged = from.path !== to.path || app.nuxt.err |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well actually it depends. || app.nuxt.err can cause _pathChanged to be instance of err instead of Boolean (true/false). This is why we use !! or Boolean. If such type safety is not important we can omit Boolean everywhere :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@manniL Good changes.
For Boolean, I agree with using it in property assignment this.foo = Boolean(bar) || ....
For local variable or if statement, !! may have some benefits.
if( !!this.app.err && a !== 'abc'){
console.log(1)
}
// after terser compression, !! will be removed, Boolean(..) won't
this.app.err&&"abc"!==a&&console.log(1)The !! is removed, the code size is smaller and there is no reference leak risk in these cases, so it should be fine.
|
@clarkdo Didn't know about the difference between The question is if it's worth the few bytes, but the trade-off is always present 🙈 |
|
Terser is only effective on |
manniL
changed the title
|
I'd keep that PR as is and create new ones for larger changes |
|
@pi0 IMO no, I also use But if you disagree with that I'm happy to revert |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #5748 +/- ##
=========================================
+ Coverage 95.6% 95.64% +0.03%
=========================================
Files 82 82
Lines 2662 2662
Branches 683 683
=========================================
+ Hits 2545 2546 +1
+ Misses 98 97 -1
Partials 19 19
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@manniL No both array and obj destruction are nice things. I just meant about single value arrays. We can do it for consistency or keep |
Changes
!!sthtoBoolean(sth){ abc: abc }to{ abc }const abc = someArray[0]toconst [abc] = someArray