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.

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

fix: explicitly list allowed image types for upload #7819

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 15, 2024

Conversation

rexxars
Copy link
Member

@rexxars rexxars commented Nov 14, 2024

Description

We're currently allowing image/* in the image input, but only a certain types are allowed by our backend. In particular, we recently added support for AVIF images to be output, but we don't yet support them to be uploaded. Instead of letting users upload the entire image before they get a message saying they are not supported, we should flag our support in the image selection dialog.

Also fixed a race condition issue with the clearUploadStatus callback - when the image fails to be uploaded, eg rejected because of an unsupported format, the value doesn't seem to have a value - and thus does not get unset. Instead it is stuck in the pending state (100% done) until someone resets it. I don't quite see the need to check before unsetting - but let me know if I am overlooking something.

Did some minor typing/lint cleanups along the way.

What to review

  • Do image uploads still work as expected?
  • Are there dragons to be aware of?
  • There are so many layers I had to add these types to - are some of these meant to be "backend agnostic" and thus I should only apply it to the ones that deals with the Sanity CDN specifically?

Testing

Ideally there should be a test to ensure that you can't select eg an AVIF, but I couldn't find a good way of doing so at the moment :/

Notes for release

  • Fixed an issue where unsupported image types would be uploaded but then rejected by the server. Only accepted image file types are now

@rexxars rexxars requested a review from a team as a code owner November 14, 2024 23:56
@rexxars rexxars requested review from ricokahler and removed request for a team November 14, 2024 23:56
Copy link

vercel bot commented Nov 14, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
page-building-studio ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Nov 15, 2024 0:00am
performance-studio ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Nov 15, 2024 0:00am
test-compiled-studio ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Nov 15, 2024 0:00am
test-next-studio ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Nov 15, 2024 0:00am
test-studio ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Nov 15, 2024 0:00am
1 Skipped Deployment
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
studio-workshop ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Nov 15, 2024 0:00am

Copy link
Contributor

No changes to documentation

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 15, 2024

Component Testing Report Updated Nov 19, 2024 2:49 PM (UTC)

❌ Failed Tests (3) -- expand for details
File Status Duration Passed Skipped Failed
comments/CommentInput.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 45s 15 0 0
formBuilder/ArrayInput.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 9s 3 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/Annotations.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 33s 6 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/copyPaste/CopyPaste.spec.tsx ❌ Failed (Inspect) 1m 0s 9 7 2
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/copyPaste/CopyPasteFields.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 0s 0 12 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/Decorators.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 18s 6 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/DisableFocusAndUnset.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 11s 3 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/DragAndDrop.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 2m 32s 1 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/FocusTracking.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 46s 15 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/Input.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 1m 45s 21 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/ObjectBlock.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 1m 17s 18 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/PresenceCursors.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 9s 3 9 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/RangeDecoration.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 26s 9 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/Styles.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 19s 6 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/Toolbar.spec.tsx ❌ Failed (Inspect) 45s 11 0 1
formBuilder/tree-editing/TreeEditing.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 0s 0 3 0
formBuilder/tree-editing/TreeEditingNestedObjects.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 0s 0 3 0

Copy link
Contributor

⚡️ Editor Performance Report

Updated Fri, 15 Nov 2024 00:07:53 GMT

Benchmark reference
latency of sanity@latest
experiment
latency of this branch
Δ (%)
latency difference
article (title) 16.4 efps (61ms) 16.4 efps (61ms) +0ms (-/-%)
article (body) 56.5 efps (18ms) 56.2 efps (18ms) +0ms (+0.6%)
article (string inside object) 18.2 efps (55ms) 17.9 efps (56ms) +1ms (+1.8%)
article (string inside array) 15.4 efps (65ms) 15.2 efps (66ms) +1ms (+1.5%)
recipe (name) 31.3 efps (32ms) 31.3 efps (32ms) +0ms (-/-%)
recipe (description) 33.3 efps (30ms) 35.1 efps (29ms) -2ms (-5.0%)
recipe (instructions) 99.9+ efps (6ms) 99.9+ efps (6ms) +0ms (-/-%)
synthetic (title) 14.9 efps (67ms) 15.5 efps (65ms) -3ms (-3.7%)
synthetic (string inside object) 15.3 efps (66ms) 15.3 efps (66ms) +0ms (-/-%)

efps — editor "frames per second". The number of updates assumed to be possible within a second.

Derived from input latency. efps = 1000 / input_latency

Detailed information

🏠 Reference result

The performance result of sanity@latest

Benchmark latency p75 p90 p99 blocking time test duration
article (title) 61ms 67ms 72ms 221ms 422ms 13.5s
article (body) 18ms 20ms 38ms 202ms 328ms 6.1s
article (string inside object) 55ms 57ms 63ms 113ms 253ms 8.5s
article (string inside array) 65ms 68ms 78ms 239ms 845ms 9.5s
recipe (name) 32ms 35ms 38ms 103ms 14ms 9.5s
recipe (description) 30ms 31ms 36ms 53ms 0ms 6.1s
recipe (instructions) 6ms 8ms 8ms 12ms 0ms 3.3s
synthetic (title) 67ms 72ms 76ms 388ms 1287ms 14.7s
synthetic (string inside object) 66ms 70ms 77ms 341ms 1942ms 10.1s

🧪 Experiment result

The performance result of this branch

Benchmark latency p75 p90 p99 blocking time test duration
article (title) 61ms 64ms 72ms 293ms 453ms 13.1s
article (body) 18ms 20ms 37ms 272ms 331ms 6.1s
article (string inside object) 56ms 62ms 71ms 193ms 349ms 8.6s
article (string inside array) 66ms 73ms 81ms 395ms 1080ms 9.7s
recipe (name) 32ms 34ms 42ms 60ms 0ms 9.4s
recipe (description) 29ms 30ms 31ms 62ms 0ms 5.8s
recipe (instructions) 6ms 8ms 9ms 53ms 15ms 3.3s
synthetic (title) 65ms 69ms 72ms 388ms 1423ms 15.5s
synthetic (string inside object) 66ms 69ms 86ms 467ms 1447ms 10.0s

📚 Glossary

column definitions

  • benchmark — the name of the test, e.g. "article", followed by the label of the field being measured, e.g. "(title)".
  • latency — the time between when a key was pressed and when it was rendered. derived from a set of samples. the median (p50) is shown to show the most common latency.
  • p75 — the 75th percentile of the input latency in the test run. 75% of the sampled inputs in this benchmark were processed faster than this value. this provides insight into the upper range of typical performance.
  • p90 — the 90th percentile of the input latency in the test run. 90% of the sampled inputs were faster than this. this metric helps identify slower interactions that occurred less frequently during the benchmark.
  • p99 — the 99th percentile of the input latency in the test run. only 1% of sampled inputs were slower than this. this represents the worst-case scenarios encountered during the benchmark, useful for identifying potential performance outliers.
  • blocking time — the total time during which the main thread was blocked, preventing user input and UI updates. this metric helps identify performance bottlenecks that may cause the interface to feel unresponsive.
  • test duration — how long the test run took to complete.

Copy link
Member

@bjoerge bjoerge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would devs still be able to add an unsupported type to options.accept to their schema? It only makes sense to customize options.accept with a subset of what the backend support, so would it be sensible for us to filter out unsupported types, and/or give a warning/error if you do this? (probably an edge case, and not a big deal, this PR is still a nice improvement, I'm just curious what you think).

Also noticed that we don't surface why the upload fails if you try to upload an unsupported image (I tried avif) – it just says "The upload could not be completed at this time". We're missing an small education opportunity here as it could instead say "currently only x,y and z are supported"). We should look into fixing this separately.

TL;DR: LGTM – thank you for the additional cleanups too <3

const buttonText = t(value ? 'search.filter-asset-change' : 'search.filter-asset-select', {
context: type,
})

const accept = get(type, 'options.accept', type === 'image' ? 'image/*' : '')
const accept = get(
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oh wow, TIL you can search by uploading an image

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes two of us!

@rexxars
Copy link
Member Author

rexxars commented Nov 15, 2024

Would devs still be able to add an unsupported type to options.accept to their schema? It only makes sense to customize options.accept with a subset of what the backend support, so would it be sensible for us to filter out unsupported types, and/or give a warning/error if you do this?

Yes they would, and theoretically yes it would be nice to give a warning if specifying unsupported formats, but not sure it is worth the amount of work/edge cases it would take - since the accept attribute allows for wildcards, mime types and file extensions - it can quickly become a tedious list/function to maintain.

@rexxars
Copy link
Member Author

rexxars commented Nov 15, 2024

Also noticed that we don't surface why the upload fails if you try to upload an unsupported image (I tried avif) – it just says "The upload could not be completed at this time". We're missing an small education opportunity here as it could instead say "currently only x,y and z are supported"). We should look into fixing this separately.

Yes, I did spot that - got derailed because the backend didn't respond with a structured error code and started working on some improvements on that front. Because of i18n, we can't/shouldn't just throw the server side error message, so will need to check an error code and give localized messages. Will continue improving on this front 👍

@rexxars rexxars merged commit 0b0a6fa into next Nov 15, 2024
52 of 56 checks passed
@rexxars rexxars deleted the fix/list-supported-image-types branch November 15, 2024 16:56
juice49 added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants