-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 394
chore: stop using lodash #1728
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
Comments
I am 100% in favor of this. I feel like Lodash code is quite complex because it tries to do too much. Debugging Lodash can be hard. When comparing individual |
Yes! 🙏 |
Note: we also already use the following ESLint plugin: https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore Which brings up another point: Lodash can sometimes be used when vanilla JavaScript alternatives are available (without more lines of code). |
Personally I'm all in favor of avoiding "kitchen sink" like utility functions when possible. So yes! 👍 |
* feat: initial work done to rely on new global config dir * feat: add final functionality to the new global config spec * chore: add comment to tests * fix: typo in comment Co-authored-by: Eduardo Bouças <[email protected]> * fix: don't fail tests if there's no config to backup * fix: make tests resilient to missing config directories * fix: trolled by nodejs fs functions 🤦 * chore: don't delete legacy config and memoise globalConfig result * chore: dropping lodash.once as per #1728 and using memoize-one * chore: dropping lodash.once as per #1728 and using memoize-one * fix: require memoizeOne 🤦 Co-authored-by: Eduardo Bouças <[email protected]>
We're using only a few methods from
lodash
:isEmpty,get,debounce,isEqual,merge,isObject,pick,sample
.It would be great to replace
lodash
with more minimal dedicated packages.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: