Refactor createPages implementation by replacing lodash with native iteration

[Divyansh9192]

I noticed that lodash is currently included as a dependency but appears to be used only once inside gatsby-node.js.

Since native array methods like .forEach() provides equivalent functionality, we could:

• Replace _.each with forEach

• Remove the lodash dependency (if not used elsewhere)

• Simplify the GraphQL query in createPages to only fetch required fields (id and fields.slug)

• This would slightly reduce dependency surface and improve maintainability.

If this approach aligns with project direction, I’d be happy to submit a PR @krisstern .

Thanks!

[krisstern]

_.each handles arrays and objects; forEach is only for arrays. Are you sure what is handled is an array and not an object?

[Divyansh9192]

@krisstern Thanks for the feedback! You're right to verify. Here's my audit:

Lodash usage in codebase:

• ✅ Only 1 actual usage in gatsby-node.js (the _.each shown above)

Why forEach is safe here:

I ran a GraphQL introspection query on our schema, and here's the proof that edges is always an array:

{
  "name": "edges",
  "type": {
    "kind": "NON_NULL",
    "ofType": {
      "kind": "LIST",    
      "name": null
    }
  }
}

The schema explicitly defines edges as a LIST type (GraphQL's way of declaring arrays), not an object. This is consistent with the official Gatsby documentation for gatsby-node.js that Gatsby follows.

Tested:
I verified this by running the build with the changes and confirmed result.data.allAsciidoc.edges is indeed an array at runtime

Would you like me to proceed with the PR?

[krisstern]

Can you make sure it is really not an array of objects and provide evidence?

[krisstern]

Also, since currently it is just between you and me in this thread, there is no need to ping anyone

[Divyansh9192]

Absolutely! Let me clarify this:

Yes, edges is an array of objects, which is why using .forEach() is appropriate here.

I verified this at runtime inside createPages by logging: Array.isArray(result.data.allAsciidoc.edges)

This returned true, confirming that edges is a JavaScript array

Please let me know if any additional clarification would be helpful.

[krisstern]

I see what you mean, but could you please capture just one example of what the output for result.data.allAsciidoc.edges look like?

[Divyansh9192]

Thanks for the feedback!

I have seen the output, its like array of node objects, hence the .forEach() method would suffice here I think.

Please let me know if there’s anything I’m overlooking.

[krisstern]

I just want an example array to eyeball to confirm. Personally I have done this before, is there any reason why you are avoiding that?

[Divyansh9192]

Apologies for not sharing this earlier — here's a sample of what result.data.allAsciidoc.edges actually looks like at runtime: (showing first 2 entries):

[
  {
    node: {
      id: '4de0587e-2174-5229-ac70-*********',
      html: '<div id="preamble">...</div>',  // full rendered HTML (truncated here for brevity)
      document: [Object: null prototype],
      fields: [Object: null prototype],
      pageAttributes: [Object: null prototype]
    }
  },
  {
    node: {
      id: 'ea396fee-35e5-57d9-bd83-**********',
      html: '<div id="preamble">...</div>',
      document: [Object: null prototype],
      fields: [Object: null prototype],
      pageAttributes: [Object: null prototype]
    }
  }
]

Please Let me know if you want something else.

Thanks!