[5.3] WebAsset cross-dependencies support

[Fedik]

Summary of Changes

Implementing cross-dependencies for assets.
Means now the script asset can have a style asset in dependency, and vise versa (but not in the loop of course).

@wilsonge @HLeithner what do you think?

Example:

{
  "name": "foo",
  "type": "style",
  "uri": "foo.css"
},
{
  "name": "bar",
  "type": "style",
  "uri": "bar.css"
},
{
  "name": "bar",
  "type": "script",
  "uri": "bar.js",
  "crossDependencies": ["bar#style"]
},
{
  "name": "foo",
  "type": "script",
  "uri": "foo.js",
  "dependencies": ["bar"],
  "crossDependencies": ["foo#style"]
},

Here calling $wa->useScript('foo') will enable all 4 assets.

Testing Instructions

Apply patch, run npm install,
Edit article, and use tag field.
Edit module, and use module position field.
Use smart search with autocomplete enabled.

Actual result BEFORE applying this Pull Request

Works

Expected result AFTER applying this Pull Request

Works

Link to documentations

Please select:

• Documentation link for docs.joomla.org: https://docs.joomla.org/J4.x:Web_Assets
• No documentation changes for docs.joomla.org needed
• Pull Request link for manual.joomla.org: WebAsset dependencies and cross-dependencies Manual#218
• No documentation changes for manual.joomla.org needed

References:

• [4.0][RFC] Elephant can manage assets also. The WebAssetRegistry class to manage assets and it`s dependacies #22435

[HLeithner]

I think that make it much less verbose and unnecessary bloated. We have one drawback if you don't want the style you have to override the style which might not be a problem.

Is introducing a cross dependency property really needed? wouldn't it be possible to add array syntax to dependency key?

[Fedik]

wouldn't it be possible to add array syntax to dependency key?

This will make code much more complicated and probably slower, also b/c is questionable.
Separate property is more clean and simple.

[HLeithner]

This will make code much more complicated and probably slower, also b/c is questionable. Separate property is more clean and simple.

not so sure if it would be significant slower than parsing json already :-)
For me it's more our the developer experience, we will get questions when do I use what and why shouldn't I write everything into the crossDependencies key

            "crossDependencies": {
              "style": ["choicesjs"],
              "script": ["choicesjs"],
            }

which is btw a much cleaner way than

            "dependencies": [
              "choicesjs#style",
              "choicesjs#script"
            ],

which does basically the same but only for presets right?

supporting this syntax for all types of assets would reduce code to maintain and allow flexibility or I'm wrong?

I mean if you run a check if (is_array($dependency[0])) { foreach($d[0] as $type=>$dep) { include } } doesn't seems to be much more complicated then parsing the string for #style and #script which does the same in the end right and supporting the old syntax for b/c might not be the biggest overhead.
ymmv

[Fedik]

I not sure that I understood you correctly :)

we will get questions when do I use what and why shouldn't

It is simple: you always use dependencies, when your asset depend from asset of another type then use crossDependencies for this type of asset (it will be around 0.1-1% of all use).

In the core we have only a few asset that actualy use it.

It is more like an addittion, and not a replacement.
I would not want to re-define how the main dependecies is working. I think it already settled well, I mean everyone who use asset manager already get used to it.

Your sugestion sounds like we need to re-define how the dependecies is working. And we will be need to introduce some deprecations and have a mixed code/logic for the time of transition. I am not fan of it.

[Fedik]

I have added "example" in to description

[Fedik]

Okay, I found a way of doinng "dependecies": ["potato#script", "potato#style"].
Check in alternative branch 5.1-dev...Fedik:webasset-crossdependency2

But I do not very like that.
It introduces an extra parsing in to WebAssetItem class.
And it breaks the return type for preset, example call $preset->getDependecies() for preset:

{
  "name": "foobar",
  "type": "preset",
  "dependecies":["foo", "foo#style", "foo#script"]
}

Currently :

$preset->getDependecies() // will return ["foo", "foo#style", "foo#script"]

After requested changes:

$preset->getDependecies() // will return ["foo"]
// To get rest
$preset->getCrossDependecies() //will return [style => ["foo"], script => "foo"]

That will break code when someone use this preset outside of AssetManager.

I think use of extra property allow us to introduce this feature without extra hassle.
And migrate presets from current state to:

{
  "name": "foobar",
  "type": "preset",
  "dependecies":["foo"],
  "crossDependecies":["foo#style", "foo#script"]
}

(It also will be a b.c., but more controllable, because it wil affect only presets edited in json, instead of every existing preset)

What is your thought?

[HLeithner]

This pull request has been automatically rebased to 5.3-dev.