Open
Conversation
… != operator is used for non-strict inequality comparison. Here are a few reasons why you might prefer to use !== instead of !=: The !== operator checks both the value and the type of the operands, whereas the != operator performs type coercion, which can lead to unexpected results. By using !==, you ensure that the values being compared are of the same type, making your code more robust and less prone to errors.
… declared do not change
we did not need to separate the URL variable into a separate "separated" variable so i changed it to one variable to get and split the variable. also replaced some of the vars with const
MunyaradziMagura
requested review from
00Chaotic,
astley92,
bahriddin,
bmpickford and
iyertalks
bahriddin
suggested changes
May 26, 2023
Contributor
bahriddin
left a comment
bahriddin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for bringing up this PR 👏🏽
I didn't get what exactly this chunk is doing but I am providing general feedback.
|
|
||
| // Check if filter needs to be applied | ||
| if ((window._search != undefined) && (window._search.length > 0 )) { | ||
| if ((window._search !== undefined) && (window._search.length > 0 )) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you tested edge cases? AFAIK there is a difference between != and !==. For example,
null != undefined // false
null !== undefined // true| function openRequestedPopup() { | ||
| windowObjectReference = window.open(_scorecard_path, 'Scorecard', strWindowFeatures); | ||
| } | ||
| const openRequestedPopup = () => windowObjectReference = window.open(_scorecard_path, 'Scorecard', strWindowFeatures); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is windowObjectReference used somewhere?
| function refreshParent() { | ||
| window.opener.location.reload(); | ||
| } | ||
| const refreshParent = () => window.opener.location.reload(); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I couldn't find its call. Could you please check if there is?
| function openRequestedPopup(team_scorecards_path) { | ||
| windowObjectReference = window.open(team_scorecards_path, 'Team Scorecards', strWindowFeatures); | ||
| } | ||
| const openRequestedPopup = (team_scorecards_path) => windowObjectReference = window.open(team_scorecards_path, 'Team Scorecards', strWindowFeatures); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is windowObjectReference used somewhere?
| window.opener.location.reload(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const refreshParent = () => window.opener.location.reload(); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I couldn't find its call. Could you please check if there is?
Comment on lines
+53
to
+57
| const url = window.location.href; | ||
| const tail = url.substring(url.lastIndexOf('/') + 1); | ||
|
|
||
| // Remove any query parameters from the segment | ||
| const clean_tail = tail.substring(0, tail.lastIndexOf('?')); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like the whole purpose of these lines are to clean up the url. In this case we should wrap it into one function. Please, take this code as an example only:
Suggested change
| const url = window.location.href; | |
| const tail = url.substring(url.lastIndexOf('/') + 1); | |
| // Remove any query parameters from the segment | |
| const clean_tail = tail.substring(0, tail.lastIndexOf('?')); | |
| ... | |
| const url_tail_without_parameters = url => { | |
| const tail = url.substring(url.lastIndexOf('/') + 1); | |
| // Remove any query parameters from the segment | |
| return tail.substring(0, tail.lastIndexOf('?')); | |
| } | |
| ... | |
| const clean_tail = url_tail_without_parameters(window.location.href); |
| $("#team_data_set_description").css("height", $("#hiddendescription").outerHeight()); | ||
| } catch (e) { | ||
|
|
||
| console.error('An error occured.', e) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dp we use some error monitoring service like BugSnag?
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
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.
Pull Request Checklist
mainbranch