Drop some lodash usage in favor of native JS alternatives #251
Conversation
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
Contributor
|
Website deployed to CF Pages, 👀 preview link https://9c63c79a.balena-design-system.pages.dev |
myarmolinsky
force-pushed
the
drop-some-lodash-for-native-alternatives
branch
from
08973d1 to
2262746
Compare
JSReds
reviewed
Sep 23, 2025
| const InstructionsItem = ({ node, index }: InstructionsItemProps) => { | ||
| const hasChildren = has(node, 'children'); | ||
| const hasChildren = | ||
| node != null && Object.hasOwnProperty.call(node, 'children'); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine to just use Object.hasOwn as it is supported by all browsers we support ATM
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not supported by our current module
|
|
||
| const getKeyLabel = (schema: JSONSchema) => { | ||
| const s = find(schema.properties, { description: 'key' }) as JSONSchema; | ||
| const s = findValueByDescription(schema.properties, 'key'); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you can remove these 2 find methods and reuse
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please explain why you think so? They do not appear alike to me
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nvm sorry my bad 🙏
we can probably replace one of them but I'm also thinking that the fact that these 2 methods are only checking the first level was intentional for filters logic
Page-
reviewed
Sep 23, 2025
myarmolinsky
force-pushed
the
drop-some-lodash-for-native-alternatives
branch
from
2262746 to
2a30881
Compare
myarmolinsky
force-pushed
the
drop-some-lodash-for-native-alternatives
branch
3 times, most recently
from
bfd9387 to
4770c1a
Compare
drskullster
reviewed
Nov 14, 2025
myarmolinsky
force-pushed
the
drop-some-lodash-for-native-alternatives
branch
3 times, most recently
from
224236a to
2e2165e
Compare
JSReds
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
/rebase |
Contributor
Author
|
/rebase |
Change-type: patch
Change-type: patch
git-basejump
bot
force-pushed
the
drop-some-lodash-for-native-alternatives
branch
from
2e2165e to
f5c2dd6
Compare
flowzone-app
bot
deleted the
drop-some-lodash-for-native-alternatives
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.
Fibery: https://balena.fibery.io/Work/Project/We-should-migrate-from-lodash-to-es-toolkit-(UI-CLI-etc.)-1895