Skip to content

Conversation

@WGrobler
Copy link
Contributor

Update to PR #969

  • "Disable Styles" now uses a comma separated string
  • Added a common attributes for server only attributes
  • Added disableStyles to useCommonServerAttributes
  • Updated EN l10n to include attributeUiDisableStylesAttributes

];
};

Object.keys(Styles).forEach((key) => {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the right think is to keep the array as is and just filter it. Otherwise the order is not guaranteed and you kind of have duplication of the ids.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are you suggesting that we use an array for Styles (like it currently is in master) and delete styles from it if found in the disabledStyles list? Or do you suggest that we still loop over Styles and create activeStyles, but only changing Styles back to a list instead of an dict?

I thought about looping though the disabledStyles set, looking for the id in Styles and removing it if found. The problem is that it would require a search though the entire Styles array for every entry in disabledStyles. Since disabledStyles will always be smaller than Styles, I decided that it would be better to perform the "has key" check on the disabledStyles set.

Changing Styles back to an array and still using the same logic where its copied over to activeStyles if not in disabledStyles, should solve your order and id duplication concerns.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changing Styles back to an array and still using the same logic where its copied over to activeStyles if not in disabledStyles, should solve your order and id duplication concerns.

I made this change with d17e1b3

Copy link
Member

@tananaev tananaev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added some small comments, but overall looks pretty good.

const activeStyles = [];

return [
const Styles = [
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

variables shouldn't start with a capital letter. it should be lower case

const hereKey = useAttributePreference('hereKey');
const mapboxAccessToken = useAttributePreference('mapboxAccessToken');
const customMapUrl = useSelector((state) => state.session.server?.mapUrl);
const disabledStyles = new Set((useSelector((state) => state.session.server.attributes?.disableMapLayers) || '').split(',') || []);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would split it into two. First get disableMapLayers using selector and then a separate line to convert it into a set.

Also I think || [] should be unnecessary.

Comment on lines +191 to +196
for (let i = 0; i < Styles.length; i += 1) {
if (!disabledStyles.has(Styles[i].id)) {
activeStyles.push(Styles[i]);
}
}
return activeStyles;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just use styles.filter(...) instead of doing this loop. And no need for a separate variable in that case.

const t = useTranslation();

const commonUserAttributes = useCommonUserAttributes(t);
const commonServerAttributes = useServerAttributes(t);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You forgot to rename the variable.

@tananaev
Copy link
Member

Any plans to update this or should we close it for now?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants