@material-ui/core: parsed: -0.08% 😍, gzip: -0.18% 😍
@material-ui/lab: parsed: -1.05% 😍, gzip: -0.95% 😍

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 9edddc7

Any ideas on how to fix the Error: No suitable component definition found. error?

Should it close #15231?

Should it close #15231?

I think #15231 should stay open a little longer, just until we remove some .defaultPropss and It looks like Menu still uses setRef

I have never seen anyone use the TouchRipple directly, but it's always possible. I would hope people use the ButtonBase if they need a ripple animation.

The ref part is in fact required by the ButtonBase.

Agree with the TouchRippleProps part. Those should not be exposed since we already have utility props in the form of disableRipple or disableFocusRipple.

Got an idea for the test. I'm not a fan of abstracting assertions. These are comfortable for writing but make reading difficult. Code should be optimized for readability.

Code should be optimized for readability

@eps1lon This is an interesting topic! I would argue that it depends on the context. I see a couple of different cases for us:

• Core component: Maintainers probably spend x10 more time reading the logic than modifying it. Users probably spend x100 more time reading our sources than modifying it.
• Material-UI component users, I would expect a wide spectrum, from one shoot contractors that don't look back to large enterprise. The ratio probably ranges from x1/5 to x50, with a predominance of "don't look back" users.
• Our tests. I spend most of my time writing and reading them. Maybe the ratio is closer to x2.

This is based on my own experience, not a source of truth, the point I want to make is that we might have to balance between 3 states.

• Optimize the API for writing
• Optimize the source for reading
• Keep a balance in the tests for writing and reading

Does it make sense, do you see a flaw in this reasoning?

Does it make sense, do you see a flaw in this reasoning?

No other than it's just guesswork. Just wondering why you wrote this down since it agrees with everything I said. It even doubles down by arguing users read our source code 100x more which means readable code is even more important. So I'm not sure what you're trying say other than: I agree.

Ok, perfect, we are aligned.