Conversation
|
@jjeffryes Would you mind updating this with the latest |
|
@rmisio I merged in eth-master, it's a lot more sane now. :) |
|
When I search for a mod, I get double "loading" texts:
|
|
|
||
| loadTemplate('components/moderators/card.html', (t) => { | ||
| this.$el.html(t({ | ||
| valid: !!this.model.isValid(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
isValid returns a bool so the negated not is not needed.
Also, should we maybe name the variable validModel? valid seems so ambiguous.
| const loaded = !!ob.name; | ||
| /* Disable the card if it is invalid and the controls should be shown, and it is not selected. This allow the user to de-select invalid cards. | ||
| The view should prevent the invalid card from being selected again, disabling it is redundant but important visually. */ | ||
| const isDisabled = (!ob.valid && !ob.controlsOnInvalid ) || (!ob.valid && ob.controlsOnInvalid && ob.selectedState !== 'selected') || !loaded ? 'disabled' : ''; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we clean up the indentation on the comment? It's kind of all over the place.
A common pattern we use is:
/*
* Hey, I'm a multi-line block comment.
* Don't I look purty?
*/
| The view should prevent the invalid card from being selected again, disabling it is redundant but important visually. */ | ||
| const isDisabled = (!ob.valid && !ob.controlsOnInvalid ) || (!ob.valid && ob.controlsOnInvalid && ob.selectedState !== 'selected') || !loaded ? 'disabled' : ''; | ||
| const isOKMod = ob.valid && ob.isMod; | ||
| const isDisabled = (!isOKMod && !ob.controlsOnInvalid ) || (!isOKMod && ob.controlsOnInvalid && ob.selectedState !== 'selected') || !loaded ? 'disabled' : ''; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would maybe rename this to disabledClass to more accurately represent what the variable holds. isDisabled leads me to believe its a boolean.
| } | ||
| } else if (eventData.id === asyncID && !excluded.includes(eventData.peerId)) { | ||
| } else if ( | ||
| eventData.id && |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are these first two really needed. If either was not truthy, wouldn't one or both of the last two conditions fail?
|
|
||
| get hasValidCurrency() { | ||
| return anySupportedByWallet(this.modCurs); | ||
| const validFeeCur = this.fixedFeeCur && |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would just:
this.fixedFeeCur && !!getCurrencyByCode(this.fixedFeeCur)
We should avoid sorting the list since that's not needed here.
| // provide the expected capitalization of peerID | ||
| eventData.peerID = eventData.peerId; | ||
| delete eventData.peerId; | ||
| if (this.modsToFetch.includes(eventData.peerID)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the "peer id" coming from the socket is peerId not peerID.
|
@jjeffryes One other thing I noticed is that it appears that when I toggle the Verified Moderators checkbox the whole payment screen is re-rendering. I haven't looked in the code, but I'm basing that on the fact that the images across the whole view flicker. If that's the case, seems way too heavy handed. I would think that upon toggle just the moderators view would need some state updated. Anyhow, I know that probably wasn't introduced in this PR, so let me know if it's better I just log an issue we could prioritize for some other time? |
|
@jjeffryes Also please let me know if I should log a seperate issue for this or if you want to fix it in this PR: |
I'll see if I can fix that with a reasonable amount of effort when revising this PR, if not I'll create a new issue for it. |
|
I made a separate issue for future rendering optimization. #1866 The rest of this should be ready for re-review. |
2 participants
This adds the same changes from #1859 and #1861 to the eth-master branch.
This also closes #1862.
This is built on top of #1863, and should not be merged until that branch is merged. The WIP label is just there to make sure that doesn't happen.