handle moving nodes #382
handle moving nodes #382
Conversation
| @@ -460,7 +460,6 @@ function insertExpression(parent, value, current, marker, unwrapArray) { | |||
| if (value === current) return current; | |||
| const t = typeof value, | |||
| multi = marker !== undefined; | |||
| parent = (multi && current[0] && current[0].parentNode) || parent; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure what might break by this removal but this for sure breaks the parent comparison in cleanChildren
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ryan made a comment about this code in a related issue here #307 (comment)
I will have to study it again to refresh my mind, I'm not sure I actually ever understood that part
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've tried to track this down and, oh well 😅, no wonder even Ryan can't remember this. This check existed since the beginning.
| if (!moved) { | ||
| moved = new WeakSet(); | ||
| queueMicrotask(() => (moved = null)); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
WeakSet is already used by hydration so doesn't hurt anything but there might be better approaches than this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest considering a strong referenced array to be cleared in the microtask as moved.length = 0. As the cost of instantiating could be removed, and also a set will try to deduplicate the nodes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking if weakset was faster than array to check for element existence. Any form of book-keeping works really. We could also keep it in the nodes but I don't know the performance side of this. Essentially we need to know if a node has changed position in the tree.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense. Last time I measured this, for a fairly low amount of items there was no significant difference between [].includes and set.has and you do not pay the cost of the Set having to deduplicate/hash items. I think solid reactivity does this (ex: reading a signal just pushes to observers without deduplicating).
At first sight sounds like keeping the info in the node will complicate the logic, either a microtask for each node or some sort of counter. Probably worth considering, as a microtask could introduce desync, not sure if solidjs/signals will use microtasks, but everything becomes a race when used. This is why I do not like reactivity in microtasks
Maybe make of the WeakSet a Set to be hold in the parent scope, and call set.clear() in the microtask. I'm thinking of at least not paying the cost of creating the set/array each time.
Signed-off-by: Nyi Nyi Lwin <mdy.nnl@gmail.com>
fixes solidjs/solid#2357