Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

searchLocalStorageDataClasses #718

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

searchLocalStorageDataClasses #718

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
aece4f1
LocalStorage: Extract restore and persistRecord
apepper Dec 20, 2024
db9dddd
Added searchLocalStorageDataClasses
apepper Dec 20, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
31 changes: 31 additions & 0 deletions src/Data/provideLocalStorageDataClass.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ interface RawDataItem {
[key: string]: unknown
}

const recordKeys: Set<{ recordKey: string; className: string }> = new Set()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  •  FYI Making this a Set is misleading b/c the seemingly same key, e.g. recordKeys.add({ recordKey: "foo", className: "bar" }) will be added multiple times to the set. How about making it an Array instead?


export function provideLocalStorageDataClass(
className: string,
{
Expand All @@ -25,6 +27,7 @@ export function provideLocalStorageDataClass(
} = {},
) {
const recordKey = `localDataClass-${scrivitoTenantId()}-${className}`
recordKeys.add({ className, recordKey })
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  • FYI The recordKey can be recomputed easily from the className. How about reducing redundancy and just storing the list of class names?
  • FYI Taking it one step further: Looking at the intended usage the caller of searchLocalStorageDataClasses knows all class names. If this is true for all callers we could rid of the list of keys completely by taking the list of class names as an argument.


if (initialContent) initializeContent(initialContent)

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -142,6 +145,34 @@ export function provideLocalStorageDataClass(
}
}

export function searchLocalStorageDataClasses(
search: string,
blackListEntities: string[] = [],
): Array<{ _id: string; entity: string; title: string }> {
const results: Array<{ _id: string; entity: string; title: string }> = []
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  •  FYI For a reader with a functional programming background something like this could be more readable (actually this is what I translate the logic of the function to in my head when reading the code):
  return entities.flatMap((entity) =>
    Object.entries(restoreRecord(recordKeyForClassName(entity)))
      .filter(([, item]) => Object.values(item).some(matchesSearchTerm))
      .map(([_id, item]) => ({
        _id,
        entity,
        title: ensureString(item.title) || ensureString(item.keyword),
      })),
  )


const lowerCaseSearchTerm = search.toLowerCase()
const matchesSearchTerm = (value: unknown) =>
typeof value === 'string' &&
value.toLowerCase().includes(lowerCaseSearchTerm)

recordKeys.forEach(({ className: entity, recordKey }) => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  • FYI we're mixing and renaming className and entity/entities for the same thing. Can we stick to either one or the other for better readability?

if (blackListEntities.includes(entity)) return

Object.entries(restoreRecord(recordKey)).forEach(([_id, item]) => {
if (Object.values(item).some(matchesSearchTerm)) {
results.push({
_id,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  •  FYI We may end up with multiple results sharing the same _id, e.g., after copy-pasting to add a new local-storage data class. Not sure which implications this will have later on.

entity,
title: ensureString(item.title) || ensureString(item.keyword),
})
}
})
})

return results
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  • FYI The results will be "sorted" by the runtime order of entities. Assuming an actual backend would sort by relevance, could we apply some sorting, e.g., by the number of matches per item?

}

function restoreRecord(recordKey: string): Record<string, RawDataItem> {
let item: string | null | undefined
try {
Expand Down