Removed code duplication between 2 files. #2805

[Harshit-7373]

Fixes #2805

Changes:

1. A common function was used in both files. To avoid duplication, I created a shared folder and added a new file (resolveUtils.js), where I wrote the common function along with the necessary import statements.
   Imported the shared function (resolveUtils.js) into both files and removed the redundant function definitions.
2. Updated and corrected the RegExp.test() code to improve efficiency.
3. Added Explanatory comments in the files wherever necessary.
4. Added Unit tests.

Answers to the Questions Asked in the PR Description:

1. There was a function named (resolvePathsForElementsWithAttribute) which was common in both the files. The exact code which was same in both the files was : - export function resolvePathsForElementsWithAttribute(attr, sketchDoc, files) { const elements = sketchDoc.querySelectorAll([${attr}]); const elementsArray = Array.prototype.slice.call(elements); elementsArray.forEach((element) => { if (element.getAttribute(attr).match(MEDIA_FILE_REGEX)) { const resolvedFile = resolvePathToFile(element.getAttribute(attr), files); if (resolvedFile && resolvedFile.url) { element.setAttribute(attr, resolvedFile.url); } } }); }

2. Some parts of the code were similar but had slight differences due to the client vs. server environment requirements.

3. Since the /embed/ endpoints are currently disabled due to phishing concerns, the server-side version of this code may no longer be necessary. If its primary purpose was handling these endpoints and they are no longer in use, it would make sense to remove it unless there is a plan to re-enable them securely.

I have verified that this pull request:

• has no linting errors (npm run lint)
• has no test errors (npm run test)
• is from a uniquely-named feature branch and is up to date with the develop branch.
• is descriptively named and links to an issue number, i.e. Fixes #123

[Harshit-7373]

An image showing that the unit test has passed :

[Harshit-7373]

I had made a PR on the same issue earlier, but due to some errors, I had to close that one. This is a fully updated pull request with the necessary unit tests, as we discussed earlier. @raclim , Please review it if possible.

[raclim]

Thanks for looking into this! I think this overall feels good to me! I changed a bit of the names and removed a few extra comments that felt self-explanatory. I also added in a bit of documentation for the utility function, which is a practice we generally want to hold!