Feature/optimize editor performance

[sempostma]

Note

I had to close and ropen #7719 because I moved my decap-cms fork repository to an organization.

This PR simply prevents a rerender of the entire EditorControl tree. This is done by making all the props stable, aka not passing new references when its not needed.

The risk with this change is that it's very easy for someone to create a new commit that reintroduces in an unstable prop which would cause the same performance issues again.

Summary

I'm using Decap for a project with a very large collection schema with reorder-able blocks and lists. On a 2024's machine, typing is almost impossible so not acceptable as a deliverable.

Test plan

The best way to test it is adding a 'shouldComponentUpdate' to the editorControl:

  shouldComponentUpdate(nextProps, nextState) {
    const valuesThatWhereUpdated = []
    for (const key in nextProps) {
      if (this.props[key] !== nextProps[key]) {
        valuesThatWhereUpdated.push(key)
      }
    }

    const stateValuesThatWhereUpdated = []
    for (const key in nextState) {
      if (this.state[key] !== nextState[key]) {
        stateValuesThatWhereUpdated.push(key)
      }
    }

    console.log('EditorControl shouldComponentUpdate', {
      valuesThatWhereUpdated,
      stateValuesThatWhereUpdated,
    })

    return true;
  }

If you add this to the current main branch, you will see hundreds of messages. After the change this drops to 3 or 4 (for each keystroke you type in a field for example).

Checklist

• I have read the contribution guidelines.

A picture of a cute animal (not mandatory but encouraged)

[yanthomasdev]

Thanks @sempostma, CI is failing because you need to do npm run format in your branch, I would've done that for you but apparently I can't commit to your branch 😓

[yanthomasdev]

I found a few things doing another pass here, let me know if they make sense!

[sempostma]

I found a few things doing another pass here, let me know if they make sense!

Nice, I made some changes and rebased the branch.

[yanthomasdev]

Thanks @sempostma, one small comment and I believe it should be good to go. I just need you to update branch here since the branch is protected and I can't do it myself

[yanthomasdev]

Shouldn't this be returned as well?

Suggested change

	validateMetaField(state, collection, field, value, t);
	return validateMetaField(state, collection, field, value, t);