Skip to content

Partially revert "Tighten linting" changes to Click to Load code #415

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 12, 2023

Conversation

kzar
Copy link
Contributor

@kzar kzar commented Apr 12, 2023

Recently, we adjusted the linting rules to make them stricter. While
doing that, we made some changes to the Click to Load code to make the
linting pass. Unfortunately, that complicated ongoing (and more
urgent) changes to that code that are about to land.

Let's revert the linting changes to the Click to Load code therefore,
while keeping the linting passing + adding a note to revisit.

Recently, we adjusted the linting rules to make them stricter. While
doing that, we made some changes to the Click to Load code to make the
linting pass. Unfortunately, that complicated ongoing (and more
urgent) changes to that code that are about to land.

Let's revert the linting changes to the Click to Load code therefore,
while keeping the linting passing + adding a note to revisit.
@kzar kzar requested a review from jonathanKingston April 12, 2023 12:48
@kzar kzar requested a review from ladamski as a code owner April 12, 2023 12:48
@jonathanKingston
Copy link
Contributor

What was the issue? Did you apply #411 over your patch.

@kzar
Copy link
Contributor Author

kzar commented Apr 12, 2023

What was the issue? Did you apply #411 over your patch.

The issue is that the linting changes to the file were quite large, made rebasing hard, and were not especially helpful. Some of the removed async/awaits needed to be readded again, and the many @ts-expect-error comments didn't add much.

There is much to tidy in this file, but we need to pick our battles. Such a sweeping change to fix linting directly before a new feature is released is bad timing. I intend to come back to that however, once the feature has shipped.

@jonathanKingston
Copy link
Contributor

Ok sure, please get a real review before merging #390

There's clear race conditions and unnecessary complexity in that code that put the entire platform at risk.

@kzar kzar merged commit 2a5b2bd into duckduckgo:main Apr 12, 2023
@kzar
Copy link
Contributor Author

kzar commented Apr 13, 2023

Ok sure, please get a real review before merging #390

Well, for what it's worth I think the ongoing review with @franfaccin is a "real" review (whatever that means). She knows that code better than pretty much anyone.

There's clear race conditions and unnecessary complexity in that code that put the entire platform at risk.

I guess we can agree to disagree there, since I'll be having ongoing discussions about the best approach on the review with @franfaccin and now @sammacbeth as well.

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