-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25
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
add deeplinking for block types #674
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
352ac64
to
6d5ccd2
Compare
Copilot
AI
left a 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.
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
documentManager.open(uriString, liquidRawTagContent, 1); | ||
|
||
const result = await documentLinksProvider.documentLinks(uriString); | ||
expect(result).toEqual([]); |
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.
The test case description suggests it should return a list of document links with correct URLs, but the expectation is an empty array. This should be corrected to check for the correct URLs.
expect(result).toEqual([]); | |
expect(result).toEqual(expectedUrls); |
Copilot is powered by AI, so mistakes are possible. Review output carefully before use.
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 a good start! Deeplinking types works great in the cases you support and if anything, this PR really inspires even further deep linking support to other places like JSON templates
@@ -61,4 +61,20 @@ describe('DocumentLinksProvider', () => { | |||
expect(result[i].target).toBe(expectedUrls[i]); | |||
} | |||
}); | |||
|
|||
it('should return a list of document links with correct URLs for a LiquidRawTag document', async () => { |
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.
The name of this unit test and what its verifying for doesnt quite match. I do think that the test case you are describing here should be tested in addition to the empty array case you implemented for.
); | ||
} | ||
|
||
function processPresetBlocks( |
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 kind of a hefty function. it would help with scanability to encapsulate common functionality between the conditional branches.
|
||
if (blocksNode.type === 'object' && blocksNode.children) { | ||
blocksNode.children.forEach((propertyNode) => { | ||
const blockValueNode = propertyNode.children?.[1]; // The value node of the property |
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.
Its always the second argument of the children array?
} | ||
|
||
const typeNode = findNodeAtLocation(blockValueNode, ['type']); | ||
if (typeNode && typeNode.type === 'string' && typeof typeNode.value === 'string') { |
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.
When evaluating a generic variable conforms to a specific structure, you can do something called "type narrowing" when there is a specific type definition for the structure of data that you're verifying for. This has typescript benefits of showing proper typing feedback as you write code inside these conditionals. Take a look at these examples of type narrowing code in the theme-tools repo: https://github.com/Shopify/theme-tools/blob/deeplink-theme-blocks/packages/theme-check-common/src/types.ts#L23-L25
} | ||
|
||
const typeNode = findNodeAtLocation(blockNode, ['type']); | ||
if (typeNode && typeNode.type === 'string' && typeof typeNode.value === 'string') { |
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.
same comment about type narrowing this to something more specific from JSONNode
} | ||
}); | ||
} else if (blocksNode.type === 'array' && blocksNode.children) { | ||
blocksNode.children.forEach((blockNode) => { |
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.
One way to reduce this big function is to move the iteree code within the forEach into a standalone function definition.
Draft PR for #631
This is functional, but not streamlined. There's probably some logic here that can consolidated into helper functions, and there may be an easier way to go through the blocks/types.
But this works for top level block types, and block types in presets. As intended, it does not deeplink inline block types or ones starting with @.