In previous iterations of the classPersister, we
found issues with the implementation meant classes
it should have added back to elements were also
added to other elements. This adds tests for this
scenario to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Also includes changes to fix a linting error with
the JS which complained about a function being
defined in a loop while referencing variables in
the outer scope.
The assumption that the classes you want to
persist will always have parity with the elements
that have those classes, at that point, won't
always be true.
Because of that, this changes the way elements
with those classes are stored, to be in a map
between classes and the elements with them (at
that point).
Also includes an extra test for a scenario where
more than one updating component is in the page
with classes that need to persist through updates.
The updateContent JS was changed in this commit so
the replacement of the original HTML (with GOVUK
modules data-attributes) was moved into the start
method rather than being a slightly odd side
effect of the render function diffing:
476ed1593c
This adds a test to make it more clear this
happens, as requested in this comment:
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/4155#discussion_r804689618
Wrap the code that updates the HTML with changes
from the server with code that stores and
re-applies specified classes.
This is to allow other JS to add classes which
change the visual state of the HTML without them
being considered by the code that diffs our
in-page HTML against that from the server.
They are called classesToPersist because this
should make the visual state they create persist
between updates.
Includes the addition of tests for updateContent
that cover the addition/deletion of elements so we
can write a test for classNames persisting through
updates. The existing tests only cover updates
that change the content of elements. Just adding
the test for these changes to those would simulate
a scenario that doesn't exist in the app. Writing
extra tests for the kind of updates these changes
act on keeps them in line with the app code.
We added domdiff to replace the DiffDOM library
here:
87f54d1e88
DiffDOM had updated its code to be written to the
ECMAScript 6 (ES6) standard and so needed extra
work to work with the older browsers in our
support matrix. This was recorded as an issue
here:
https://www.pivotaltracker.com/n/projects/1443052/stories/165380360
Domdiff didn't work (see below for more details)
so this replaces it with the morphdom library.
Morphdom supports the same browsers as us and is
relied on by a range of large open source
projects:
https://github.com/patrick-steele-idem/morphdom#what-projects-are-using-morphdom
It was tricky to find alternatives to DiffDOM so
if we have to source alternatives in future, other
options could be:
- https://github.com/choojs/nanomorph
- https://diffhtml.org/index.html (using its
outerHTML method)
Why domdiff didn't work
Turns out that domdiff was replacing the page HTML
with the HTML from the AJAX response every time,
not just when they differed. This isn't a bug.
Domdiff is bare bones enough that it compares old
DOM nodes to new DOM nodes with ===. With our
code, this always results to false because our new
nodes are made from HTML strings from AJAX
response so are never the same node as the old
one.
The way we're using the updateContent.js code is
slightly different to expected and to the
scenarios in our tests. This changes the
tests to match that use.
The expected behaviour was for updates to a
module's HTML to happen to the HTML inside of the
div[data-module=update-content] element.
So with initial HTML of:
<div data-module="update-content" data-key="one">
<div class="ajax-block-container">
Existing content
</div>
</div>
...should be updated to be:
<div data-module="update-content" data-key="one">
<div class="ajax-block-container">
New content
</div>
</div>
Instead the HTML returned by the AJAX requests
replaced the div[data-module=update-content]
element.
So with initial HTML of:
<div data-module="update-content" ..>
<div class="ajax-block-container">
Existing content
</div>
</div>
...will be updated to be:
<div class="ajax-block-container">
New content
</div>
This doesn't seem to create any noticable changes
to the visual interface so, I think, went
unnoticed. The assumption I am making, of this
being unintended, is based on the fact that the
div[data-module=update-content] element has an
aria-live attribute, which authors would normally
want to stay in the page when updates happen.
Note: This commit doesn't try and fix the problem,
as the behaviour still largely works and the lack
of aria-live actually seems to be a positive
thing, meaning non-visual users aren't told of
every update but can discover it themselves if
needed.
A while ago diffDOM moved its code to use ES6
modules and started using various language
features specific to ES6. These two things
happened independently btw.
The result of this is that the version of diffDOM
suitable for our build pipeline, structured as an
immediately invoked function evocation (IIFE),
now requires polyfills of some ES6 features to
work in the older browsers we support, like IE11.
It's also worth noting that in the move to ES6
the maintainers of diffDOM have adopted a process
whereby users who need to support older browsers
now have to add polyfill code for any ES6 features
they choose to use.
This commmit proposes a move to the domdiff
library instead because:
- it runs on all javascript runtimes with no
polyfills
- it is 2KB instead of diffDOM's 25KB
Domdiff takes a different approach to diffDOM, in
that it compares existing nodes and new nodes and
replaces the existing ones with the new ones if
there are differences. By contrast, diffDOM will
make in-place changes to nodes if there are enough
similarities. In other words, in most situations,
diffDOM won't change the node in $component
whereas domdiff will.
Because of this, I've had to change the
updateContent.js code to cache the data-key
attribute's value so we don't lose access to it by
overwrite the $component variable with a different
jQuery selection.
At the moment the first AJAX call is triggered as soon as the page
loads. We then look at its response time to work out how long to wait
until making the next call.
This isn’t great because:
- stuff is unlikely to have changed straight away, so it’s a waste of a
call
- while the DOM is being updated it seems to introduce a delay in
clicks on links, which is either more pronounced or more noticeable
when it’s happening straight away, making the UI feel less snappy
I chose a value of 2 seconds as a rough proxy for the minimum time we’d
expect to see a notification go from created to delivered. Median
time-to-delivered was 2.9 seconds when we analysed it for
https://github.com/alphagov/notifications-admin/pull/2974#discussion_r286101286
By default our AJAX calls were 2 seconds. Then they were 5 seconds
because someone reckoned 2 seconds was putting too much load on the
system. Then we made them 10 seconds while we were having an incident.
Then we made them 20 seconds for the heaviest pages, but back to 5
seconds or 2 seconds for the rest of the pages.
This is not a good situation because:
- it slows all services down equally, no matter how much traffic they
have, or which features they have switched on
- it slows everything down by the same amount, no matter how much load
the platform is under
- the values are set based on our worst performance, until we manually
remember to switch them back
- we spend time during incidents deploying changes to slow down the
dashboard refresh time because it’s a nothing-to-lose change that
might relieve some symptoms, when we could be spending time digging
into the underlying cause
This pull request makes the Javascript smarter about how long it waits
until it makes another AJAX call. It bases the delay on how long the
server takes to respond (as a proxy for how much load the server is
under).
It’s based on the square root of the response time, so is more sensitive
to slow downs early on, and less sensitive to slow downs later on. This
helps us give a more pronounced difference in delay between an AJAX call
that is fast (for example the page for a single notification) and one
that is slow (for example a dashboard for a service with lots of
traffic).
*Some examples of what this would mean for various pages*
Page | Response time | Wait until next AJAX call
---|---|---
Check a reply to address | 130ms | 1,850ms
Brand new service dashboard | 229ms | 2,783ms
HM Passport Office dashboard | 634ms | 5,294ms
NHS Coronavirus Service dashboard | 779ms | 5,977ms
_Example of the kind of slowness we’ve seen during an incident_ | 6,000ms | 18,364ms
GOV.UK email dashboard | `HTTP 504` | 😬
Includes:
- make 'remove team member' link, on edit member
permissions page, destructive
- convert missed links on /features pages
- convert missed links on /using-notify/guidance and sub pages
- give links in browse-lists back their size and
weight (needed for lists of live and trial
services on Platform Admin)
- give links on Platform Admin inbound numbers
page back their size and weight
- update links in JS tests
Includes:
- make 'remove team member' link, on edit member
permissions page, destructive
- convert missed links on /features pages
- convert missed links on /using-notify/guidance and sub pages
- give links in browse-lists back their size and
weight (needed for lists of live and trial
services on Platform Admin)
- give links on Platform Admin inbound numbers
page back their size and weight
- update links in JS tests
