Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reverts #6478 - removes debounce on search #6497

Merged

Conversation

micheleriva
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This PR reverts #6478. Please do not apply a debounce function when searching with Orama, it's not needed and it's killing the user experience. We offer unlimited searches so it's ok to send us even billions of them 🙂

Validation

Related Issues

Check List

  • I have read the Contributing Guidelines and made commit messages that follow the guideline.
  • I have run npx turbo format to ensure the code follows the style guide.
  • I have run npx turbo test to check if all tests are passing.
  • I have run npx turbo build to check if the website builds without errors.
  • I've covered new added functionality with unit tests if necessary.

@micheleriva micheleriva requested a review from a team as a code owner March 20, 2024 15:20
Copy link

vercel bot commented Mar 20, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview Mar 20, 2024 3:50pm

@micheleriva
Copy link
Contributor Author

For some reason npx turbo format is screwing up the indentation, I'm fixing it

Copy link
Collaborator

@bmuenzenmeyer bmuenzenmeyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if you aren't concerned as the owner of the service - neither am i

@micheleriva
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you so much @bmuenzenmeyer, definitely not a problem on our side

Copy link
Member

@AugustinMauroy AugustinMauroy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@micheleriva if the boss says it's like that then we do as the boss says 😎

@MattIPv4
Copy link
Member

Could I propose this gets fast-tracked as a fix for a relatively substantial issue? There have been discussions on Twitter about how unresponsive the search is.

@bmuenzenmeyer bmuenzenmeyer added fast-track Fast Tracking PRs github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks labels Mar 20, 2024
@bmuenzenmeyer bmuenzenmeyer enabled auto-merge March 20, 2024 16:15
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the github_actions:pull-request Trigger Pull Request Checks label Mar 20, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 20, 2024

Lighthouse Results

URL Performance Accessibility Best Practices SEO Report
/en 🟢 99 🟢 90 🟢 100 🟢 91 🔗
/en/about 🟢 100 🟢 91 🟢 100 🟢 91 🔗
/en/about/previous-releases 🟢 98 🟢 90 🟢 100 🟢 92 🔗
/en/download 🟢 100 🟠 89 🟢 100 🟢 91 🔗
/en/blog 🟢 100 🟢 90 🟢 100 🟢 92 🔗

Copy link
Contributor

Unit Test Coverage Report

Lines Statements Branches Functions
Coverage: 84%
80.07% (450/562) 79.55% (144/181) 71.17% (79/111)

Unit Test Report

Tests Skipped Failures Errors Time
90 0 💤 0 ❌ 0 🔥 4.534s ⏱️

@micheleriva
Copy link
Contributor Author

Totally agree with @MattIPv4

@bmuenzenmeyer bmuenzenmeyer added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 20, 2024
Merged via the queue into nodejs:main with commit ae66dd2 Mar 20, 2024
21 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
fast-track Fast Tracking PRs
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants