Fix modal dismissers in development mode #64132
Merged
Conversation
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
jsnajdr
added
[Type] Bug
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message. To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
|
Size Change: +12 B (0%) Total Size: 1.76 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
Mamaduka
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, @jsnajdr!
This test went well for me, and switching to Set makes more sense here, especially when the effect is run in StrictMode.
Let's include @stokesman in props when this is merged.
| @@ -89,8 +89,7 @@ function useEditorCommandLoader() { | |||
| name: 'core/open-shortcut-help', | |||
| label: __( 'Keyboard shortcuts' ), | |||
| icon: keyboard, | |||
| callback: ( { close } ) => { | |||
| close(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should probably restore this. Ref: #64075 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Restored after we verified that the modal dismissal work even when the close() call is missing 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With regards to automated testing, Modal has some unit tests for dismissal of siblings but they weren’t catching this issue with the effect. Maybe there’s a way to do it with the unit tests. If not, perhaps there could be value in omitting the explicit close call and adding an e2e test that would fail in case of a regression. Though, I'm not even sure if that could work, do the e2e test run with StrictMode active? Just a thought, likely one of you have better ones 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
E2E tests run in production mode. Unit tests might be more suitable for this.
jsnajdr
force-pushed
the
fix/modal-dismissers
branch
from
c39fa9d to
d13130d
Compare
stokesman
reviewed
Jul 31, 2024
| @@ -350,7 +351,7 @@ function UnforwardedModal( | |||
| ); | |||
|
|
|||
| return createPortal( | |||
| <ModalContext.Provider value={ nestedDismissers.current }> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose avoiding this reading of the ref during render was the idea behind using state instead. Or was it something else?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The state is also often used for one-time initializations. See https://tkdodo.eu/blog/use-state-for-one-time-initializations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The main advantage of useState for one-time initialization like this is that it supports an initialization function. You can write:
useState( () => new Set() );and avoid creating a new set on each render. It's created only when useState really wants to init and calls the initializer. On the other hand, with useRef you can only do this:
useRef( new Set() );In this particular case it doesn't matter much, but for more expensive initializations it can make a difference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, makes sense. Indeed it would hardly matter here and probably neither would there be a consequence to reading the ref in this case. All around it’s better though. Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The useState initialization pattern has been becoming popular recently because of React 19 and the React Compiler: I don't remember the exact details right now, but the compiler issues warnings about some useRef usages, and switching to useState makes it happy.
|
Flaky tests detected in d13130d. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/10179732247
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Followup to #64019 that addresses the root cause.
Apparently @stokesman was working on the same task in parallel, creating #64075 🙂
Both fixes have one part in common: a modal never calls its own dismisser.
My PR additionally converts the array to a set. I think it makes the logic more reliable, as it makes the modal effect cleanup always remove only its own dismisser. When calling
dismissers.shift(), I'm not so sure what I'm actually removing from the start of the array.