The button pickers in the style panel pop in and out all the time as
different shapes are selected. This PR lifts the dark mode check up to
the style panel itself, rather than in each picker.
### Change Type
<!-- ❗ Please select a 'Scope' label ❗️ -->
- [x] `sdk` — Changes the tldraw SDK
- [ ] `dotcom` — Changes the tldraw.com web app
- [ ] `docs` — Changes to the documentation, examples, or templates.
- [ ] `vs code` — Changes to the vscode plugin
- [ ] `internal` — Does not affect user-facing stuff
<!-- ❗ Please select a 'Type' label ❗️ -->
- [ ] `bugfix` — Bug fix
- [ ] `feature` — New feature
- [x] `improvement` — Improving existing features
- [ ] `chore` — Updating dependencies, other boring stuff
- [ ] `galaxy brain` — Architectural changes
- [ ] `tests` — Changes to any test code
- [ ] `tools` — Changes to infrastructure, CI, internal scripts,
debugging tools, etc.
- [ ] `dunno` — I don't know
### Test Plan
1. Use the style panel
2. Change the them
This PR exports all the components within each of the default menu
content components. Should make it easier to customise the default UI.
- [x] `minor` — New feature
### Release Notes
- Components within default menu content components are now exported.
Closes#2664 and #2929
### Change Type
- [x] `patch` — Bug fix
[^1]: publishes a `patch` release, for devDependencies use `internal`
[^2]: will not publish a new version
### Test Plan
1. Add a step-by-step description of how to test your PR here.
2.
- [ ] Unit Tests
- [ ] End to end tests
### Release Notes
- Fixed issues where undo/redo entries were not being set up correctly
for the opacity slider or the style dropdown menus.
We had some bad logic in `useRelevantStyles` explicitly allowing an
opacity-slider to be rendered at all times when there is at least one
shape selected.
This shouldn't be the case when the editor is in non-shape-focused tools
like the move tool and the laser pointer tool. I refactored the hook
slightly to make it easier to express the correct logic. See the comment
for a more detailed description.
### Change Type
- [x] `patch` — Bug fix
[^1]: publishes a `patch` release, for devDependencies use `internal`
[^2]: will not publish a new version
### Release Notes
- Fixes an bug causing the opacity slider to show up in the move tool
and laser pointer tool.
This PR adds a validation mode whereby previous known-to-be-valid values
can be used to speed up the validation process itself. At the same time
it enables us to do fine-grained equality checking on records much more
quickly than by using something like lodash isEqual, and using that we
can prevent triggering effects for record updates that don't actually
alter any values in the store.
Here's some preliminary perf testing of average time spent in
`store.put()` during some common interactions
| task | before (ms) | after (ms) |
| ---- | ---- | ---- |
| drawing lines | 0.0403 | 0.0214 |
| drawing boxes | 0.0408 | 0.0348 |
| translating lines | 0.0352 | 0.0042 |
| translating boxes | 0.0051 | 0.0032 |
| rotating lines | 0.0312 | 0.0065 |
| rotating boxes | 0.0053 | 0.0035 |
| brush selecting boxes | 0.0200 | 0.0232 |
| traversal with shapes | 0.0130 | 0.0108 |
| traversal without shapes | 0.0201 | 0.0173 |
**traversal** means moving the camera and pointer around the canvas
#### Discussion
At the scale of hundredths of a millisecond these .put operations are so
fast that even if they became literally instantaneous the change would
not be human perceptible. That said, there is an overall marked
improvement here. Especially for dealing with draw shapes.
These figures are also mostly in line with expectations, aside from a
couple of things:
- I don't understand why the `brush selecting boxes` task got slower
after the change.
- I don't understand why the `traversal` tasks are slower than the
`translating boxes` task, both before and after. I would expect that
.putting shape records would be much slower than .putting pointer/camera
records (since the latter have fewer and simpler properties)
### Change Type
- [x] `patch` — Bug fix
### Test Plan
1. Add a step-by-step description of how to test your PR here.
2.
- [ ] Unit Tests
- [ ] End to end tests
### Release Notes
- Add a brief release note for your PR here.
This one is a roundup of superficial changes, apologies for having them
in a single PR.
This PR:
- does some chair re-arranging for one of our hotter paths related to
updating shapes
- changes our type exports for editor components
- adds shape indicator to editor components
- moves canvas to be an editor component
- fixes a CSS bug with hinted buttons
- fixes CSS bugs with the menus
- fixes bad imports in examples
### Change Type
- [x] `major`
This PR adds some e2e tests for the toolbar.
Fixtures have been set up for the toolbar and style panel, and are
fairly barebones at the moment. Eventually each menu should have a
fixture associated with it, and all tests will use the class defined in
the fixtures file.
### Change Type
- [x] `tests` — Changes to any test code only[^2]
### Release Notes
- Add e2e tests for the toolbar
This PR:
- replaces the `shareZone` prop with `SharePanel` component
- replaces the `topZone` prop with `TopPanel` components
- replaces the `Button` component with `TldrawUiButton` and
subcomponents
- adds `TldrawUi` prefix to our primitives
- fixes a couple of bugs with the components
### Change Type
- [x] `major` — Breaking change
This PR refactors our menu systems and provides an interface to hide or
replace individual user interface elements.
# Background
Previously, we've had two types of overrides:
- "schema" overrides that would allow insertion or replacement of items
in the different menus
- "component" overrides that would replace components in the editor's
user interface
This PR is an attempt to unify the two and to provide for additional
cases where the "schema-based" user interface had begun to break down.
# Approach
This PR makes no attempt to change the `actions` or `tools`
overrides—the current system seems to be correct for those because they
are not reactive. The challenge with the other ui schemas is that they
_are_ reactive, and thus the overrides both need to a) be fed in from
outside of the editor as props, and b) react to changes from the editor,
which is an impossible situation.
The new approach is to use React to declare menu items. (Surprise!)
```tsx
function CustomHelpMenuContent() {
return (
<>
<DefaultHelpMenuContent />
<TldrawUiMenuGroup id="custom stuff">
<TldrawUiMenuItem
id="about"
label="Like my posts"
icon="external-link"
readonlyOk
onSelect={() => {
window.open('https://x.com/tldraw', '_blank')
}}
/>
</TldrawUiMenuGroup>
</>
)
}
const components: TLComponents = {
HelpMenuContent: CustomHelpMenuContent,
}
export default function CustomHelpMenuContentExample() {
return (
<div className="tldraw__editor">
<Tldraw components={components} />
</div>
)
}
```
We use a `components` prop with the combined editor and ui components.
- [ ] Create a "layout" component?
- [ ] Make UI components more isolated? If possible, they shouldn't
depend on styles outside of themselves, so that they can be used in
other layouts. Maybe we wait on this because I'm feeling a slippery
slope toward presumptions about configurability.
- [ ] OTOH maybe we go hard and consider these things as separate
components, even packages, with their own interfaces for customizability
/ configurability, just go all the way with it, and see what that looks
like.
# Pros
Top line: you can customize tldraw's user interface in a MUCH more
granular / powerful way than before.
It solves a case where menu items could not be made stateful from
outside of the editor context, and provides the option to do things in
the menus that we couldn't allow previously with the "schema-based"
approach.
It also may (who knows) be more performant because we can locate the
state inside of the components for individual buttons and groups,
instead of all at the top level above the "schema". Because items /
groups decide their own state, we don't have to have big checks on how
many items are selected, or whether we have a flippable state. Items and
groups themselves are allowed to re-build as part of the regular React
lifecycle. Menus aren't constantly being rebuilt, if that were ever an
issue.
Menu items can be shared between different menu types. We'll are
sometimes able to re-use items between, for example, the menu and the
context menu and the actions menu.
Our overrides no longer mutate anything, so there's less weird searching
and finding.
# Cons
This approach can make customization menu contents significantly more
complex, as an end user would need to re-declare most of a menu in order
to make any change to it. Luckily a user can add things to the top or
bottom of the context menu fairly easily. (And who knows, folks may
actually want to do deep customization, and this allows for it.)
It's more code. We are shipping more react components, basically one for
each menu item / group.
Currently this PR does not export the subcomponents, i.e. menu items. If
we do want to export these, then heaven help us, it's going to be a
_lot_ of exports.
# Progress
- [x] Context menu
- [x] Main menu
- [x] Zoom menu
- [x] Help menu
- [x] Actions menu
- [x] Keyboard shortcuts menu
- [x] Quick actions in main menu? (new)
- [x] Helper buttons? (new)
- [x] Debug Menu
And potentially
- [x] Toolbar
- [x] Style menu
- [ ] Share zone
- [x] Navigation zone
- [ ] Other zones
### Change Type
- [x] `major` — Breaking change
### Test Plan
1. use the context menu
2. use the custom context menu example
3. use cursor chat in the context menu
- [x] Unit Tests
- [ ] End to end tests
### Release Notes
- Add a brief release note for your PR here.
alex