![function getItemsWithNext() {
return items
.filter(item => {
if (isDeleted(item)) {
return false
}
return true
})
.map((item, i) => {
const next = items[i + 1]
return {
item,
next,
}
})
}](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:p2cp5gopk7mgjegy6wadk3ep/bafkreifjayqiaf2nznful46gpc5kf2y5gjkktlmophvgefr2nvp7uorxtm "function getItemsWithNext() {
return items
.filter(item => {
if (isDeleted(item)) {
return false
}
return true
})
.map((item, i) => {
const next = items[i + 1]
return {
item,
next,
}
})
}")
ah, this is why you use the third argument to map functions, which passes the array being mapped - a correct line 9 could shadow it by changing the invocation to `.map((item, i, items) => {`
2 3
one could also argue that `items` ought to come in as an argument, and whatever larger object provides an argumentless variant for a fixed `items` should be binding that function in its constructor
1 1yeah, for all my griping about how JavaScript code ought to embrace lexical scoping more heavily, seeing it being spelled `this.items` probably would have made this bug a little more obvious to me
1 2Samuel
@samuel.fm
yeah in our code it wasn't `this.items` because items was a new array, but I agree it would've been way easier to spot
1