Animate: refactor to TypeScript #49243
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
ciampo
added
[Type] Code Quality
ciampo
commented
Mar 21, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that there shouldn't be runtime changes in this file
ciampo
commented
Mar 21, 2023
|
|
||
| // Create a new type that and distributes the `Pick` operator separately to | ||
| // every individual type of a union, thus preserving that same union. | ||
| type DistributiveTypeAndOptions< T extends { type?: any } > = T extends any |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@chad1008 does this look familiar?
ciampo
commented
Mar 21, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I rewrote this file to be more verbose, but in a way that allows us to get rid of the Appear helper and to use the Story.args syntax which works well with Storybook controls.
In short, I opted for more verbosity in exchange of more straightforward code.
ciampo
commented
Mar 21, 2023
| className: getAnimateClassName( { | ||
| type, | ||
| ...options, | ||
| } as GetAnimateOptions ), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This typecast is not ideal, but there wasn't an easy way around it. Given that the Animate component doesn't seem to be currently used in Gutenberg, I thought I wouldn't spend too long on it.
|
Size Change: +2 B (0%) Total Size: 1.34 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
tyxla
approved these changes
Mar 22, 2023
| * ); | ||
| * ``` | ||
| */ | ||
| export function Animate( { type, options = {}, children }: AnimateProps ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It felt odd that we're allowing Animate to not have any type, but I guess that this is by design. After all, if we want to not animate, we would just omit this component from the tree.
Anyway, this was like that before, and I've confirmed that the distributive conditional type support that use case correctly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It also felt odd to me, but then I saw that the Default Storybook example explicitly mentions that the lack of type prop means no animation 🤷
| className: getAnimateClassName( { | ||
| type, | ||
| ...options, | ||
| } as GetAnimateOptions ), |
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.
What?
Refactor the
Animatecomponent to TypeScriptWhy?
Part of #35744
How?
AnimatecomponentReviewing commit-by-commit may help.
Testing Instructions
trunk