I changed the type of this tag without realizing the JS references it
by both class and `div`!
I think at the time this was a perf suggestion for jQuery, because the
best way to query by class name was to query by tag first then filter?
It's possible our jQuery still does this, but I don't imagine it's very
relevant today, so I'll just remove that for better guarding against
similar bugs in the future instead.
Okay, so I still don't know why rendering is just so slow (though
migrating away from item translations did help!), but I can at least
cache entire closet lists as a basic measure.
That way, the first user to see the latest version of a closet list
will still need just as much time to load it… but *only* the ones that
have changed since last time (rather than always the full page), and
then subsequent users get to reuse it too!
Should help a lot for high-traffic lists, which incidentally are likely
to be the big ones belonging to highly active traders!
One big change we needed to make was to extract the `user-owns` and
`user-wants` classes (which we use for trade matches for *the user
viewing the list right now*) out of the cached HTML, and apply them
after with Javascript instead. I always dislike moving stuff to JS, but
the wins here seem. truly very very good, all things considered!
From an era when we didn't have that! Now we do!
(My motivation is that I'm trying to add new JS to this page and errors
in stickUp are crashing the page early, womp womp!)
I think I cleared this from the outfits/new template a while ago, but
never cleaned up this file, because I was too anxious that I was
correctly identifying all its call sites. But now I'm more confident!
At least, they seem unused to me on a quick audit! The scriptaculous
stuff has long been replaced by jQuery UI equivalents. (Wow, so many
generations of libraries! lol)
Mostly this is just me testing out what it would look like to
modularize the app more… I've noticed that some concerns, like
fundraising, are just not relevant to most of the app, and being able
to lock them away inside subfolders feels like it'll help tidy up
long folder lists.
Notably, I haven't touched the models case yet, because I worry that
might be a bit more complex, whereas everything else seems pretty
well-isolated? We'll try it out!
Using good ol'-fashioned cookies! The JS sets it, and then Rails reads
it on pageload. That way, there's no flash of content for it to load in
after JS loads.
Now, like in DTI 2020, opening an outfit will go straight to the editor.
I'm not 100% on whether this is actually like. the superior behavior?
But I think it's good enough, and it's what the wardrobe-2020 code
expects, so let's just roll with it for now!
I hope this doesn't cause problems! But yeah, with Puma doing threading, and maybe switching to Falcon someday to get even better concurrency properties, I feel like this will probably be fine?
And it makes the UX a loootttt better, to be back in the world where all these forms just work, whew.
Just cleaning up a bit! I'm sure there's more to remove, these were just some clear candidates: old wardrobe code, and stuff in `public` that I just fully don't recognize and don't think is doing anything? (We'll find out if something crashes though lol!)
lol again this is hard to test so uhh I hope this didn't break it all!! though tbh I feel like we removed this feature or something anyway? idk it stopped working in some way
