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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: legacy json generator #92
feat: legacy json generator #92
Changes from 16 commits
46e2c4b
a51a492
6a0d6fb
08c1365
e3c8640
b95dafb
0fa285d
1444056
5a61eb7
5d084b4
5418f01
8e50047
ee13845
ffdfe06
360786d
858d77f
a27d69b
4a44ab7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can't we use a for here? To avoid using Promise.all?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is what was originally done, then after an initial review, we put a
Promise.all
instead of a series of awaits in a loop.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Am I stuttering O.o -- I still believe await would be better here for readability
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
in terms of code readability, it's the same for me. But from what I've been able to understand in this kind of case it's better for performance to use
Promise.all
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unfortunately I don't remember much about it, but I'd seen a blog post about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#92 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah yes, but that would only be the case if there's threading. It is correct to say that with the Promise approach at least the Promises will all be dispatched in parallel, but they will be executed one per time.
So in the end the feeling might be that it is faster, although it might not be. I do believe await syntax would better suit here, but no strong feelings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting way of iterating this. Wouldn't it be easier to use the heading section topology we already created, which has
heading
info that tells which depth you are based on the heading depth?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wdym?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was thinking you can use
unified
here, to iterate through the headings, (which are nodes) and then automatically add children to each parent.I think I could explain this over a call, but pretty much using the
visit
API to self reference the previous heading in terms of depth, and then visit next levels.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My fear is that the code below is too much convoluted and hacky 🙈