Improve performance of column resizing mousemouse handler by debouncing#154
Open
bZichett wants to merge 1 commit intoProseMirror:masterfrom
Open
Improve performance of column resizing mousemouse handler by debouncing#154bZichett wants to merge 1 commit intoProseMirror:masterfrom
bZichett wants to merge 1 commit intoProseMirror:masterfrom
Conversation
Author
|
Was thinking this should only start happening when the table is large enough. The UX is a bit less nice for no reason for very basic tables. |
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Note: This pull request targets prosemirror documents with large table nodes
Could add a
debounceto package dependencies instead of adding toutilsMight be nice to only debounce when detecting that the table node is "large enough". What the criteria is might be up to the developer. But regardless, even for small table nodes, the UI doesnt need to update as frequently. Also depending on use case, maybe it could be a throttle
The debounce time of 100ms seemed to be a "sweet spot" but it could also dynamically slow down according to table node size. I imagine that for very large tables, it should be even longer.