perf: use Set instead of iterating, and deduplicate a function #1278
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 10, 2022
## [27.1.5](v27.1.4...v27.1.5) (2022-11-10) ### Performance Improvements * use `Set` instead of iterating, and deduplicate a function ([#1278](#1278)) ([0e048f1](0e048f1))
| 🎉 This PR is included in version 27.1.5 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed. Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes. Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported. You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion. Outdated suggestions cannot be applied. This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved. Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews. Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge. Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This greatly improves performance when running on huge projects - I can't see any difference when running against the Jest codebase, but if I stick 3-4 copies of
typescript.js(which is 10mb in size) then without this linting takes more than 3 minutes (I didn't let it finish) whereas afterwards it takes 30-60 seconds.Weirdly this has also highlighted some test cases that apparently we didn't have yet somehow our coverage which has made me a little suspect that this could have changed behaviours, but all our tests are passing and there's no way to know for sure without having someone try this 🤷
Finally, I realised that
scopeHasLocalReferenceis actually a complete duplication ofresolveScopeso have replaced that.