Use rectIntersect instead of a custom argument to rectUnion #64855
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
noisysocks
added
General Interface
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message. To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
|
Size Change: +513 B (+0.03%) Total Size: 1.78 MB
ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
ramonjd
reviewed
Aug 28, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a minor thing but I think it's more cohesive if we stick to broadly well defined concepts like union and intersect instead of adding a custom argument to rectUnion which makes it a custom thing.
Good thinking - thanks for the follow up.
Agree 💯 with the clearer naming and intentions.
But in testing I can't get it to work as before, can you? Using test instructions posted over in #62711 (comment)
| */ | ||
| bounds = rectIntersect( | ||
| bounds, | ||
| new window.DOMRect( 0, -Infinity, viewport.innerWidth, Infinity ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you test this with Infinity? What's the reason behind that value? It seems to have reverted the efforts in #62711 😄
I thought we were interested in visibility, so defined bounds on the container would work but I could be missing something
new window.DOMRect( 0, 0, viewport.innerWidth, viewport.innerHeight )
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Didn't the original code only clip along the X axis?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah yes, true 🤔
I'll withdraw that, and speculate that consumers of getVisibleElementBounds don't know how to deal with NaN values being returned here (?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm ok. Forget rectIntersect then, we can just adjust left and right manually. I still think it's nice to not do this in rectUnion though. Pushed.
ramonjd
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2024
noisysocks
deleted the
cleanup/use-rectIntersect-instead-of-custom-arg
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Small follow up to #62711 – see #62711 (comment).
It's a minor thing but I think it's more cohesive if we stick to broadly well defined concepts like union and intersect instead of adding a custom argument to
rectUnionwhich makes it a custom thing.Up to @ramonjd, though. I can take it or leave it.