Refine event registration + event signatures #19244
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
facebook-github-bot
added
CLA Signed
React Core Team
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit 0709a3c:
|
Details of bundled changes.Comparing: 65c1377...0709a3c react-dom
ReactDOM: size: 0.0%, gzip: -0.1% Size changes (experimental) |
Details of bundled changes.Comparing: 65c1377...0709a3c react-dom
ReactDOM: size: 0.0%, gzip: -0.1% Size changes (stable) |
gaearon
reviewed
Jul 6, 2020
| @@ -904,17 +918,16 @@ export function accumulateEventTargetListeners( | |||
| if (eventListeners !== null) { | |||
| const listenersArr = Array.from(eventListeners); | |||
| const targetType = ((event.type: any): DOMTopLevelEventType); | |||
| const isCapturePhase = (event: any).eventPhase === 1; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like a significant change. Instead of reading this from the event, we now pass it from outside based on whether it's in a list. Can you please explain why this is a refactoring rather than a semantic change? And what does it accomplish, exactly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess there are two things here to note:
- This code is only used with
createEventHandlelogic, so this isn't that much of a significant change given we have no product code anywhere that uses this code path right now. - It avoids us having to rely on
eventPhasewhich can change if you add a listener to a node and the listener triggers on it (which would meaneventPhaseis2, even if it were a capture phase). When we setup the listener we can add this information to the event flags as a detail, completely avoiding this check.
| !isListeningToEvents(rootTargetDependencies, targetContainer)) | ||
| topLevelType !== TOP_SELECTION_CHANGE && | ||
| !eventListenerMap.has('onSelect') && | ||
| !eventListenerMap.has('onSelectCapture') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you explain why this check is equivalent? It's not obvious to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rather than going through all the dependencies one by one, we can instead check if we've registered onSelect or onSelectCapture. The dependencies are both the same, as we listen to the same events for both onSelect and onSelectCapture.
gaearon
approved these changes
Jul 6, 2020
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.
Note: This PR was rebased on top of #19244.
In an attempt to break up the amount of changes in #19221, I decied to pull out the logic that was not strictly related to moving to the
capturephase for events. This was mostly logic around handling event registration and the some of the clean up around the event workflow. This should hopefully make the other PR smaller and simpler to understand once it gets rebased on top of this PR.