Sort elements by name rather than type #57
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
The fields accessed by the processor have no guaranteed ordering, which I assume is why `fields` is sorted by type in the first place. In incremental builds, the order seems to change randomly, and this hurts compilation avoidance as then the generated StateSaver classes are different (calls shifted around but functionally not changing). Since `fields` is being sorted by type, fields of the same type still have no guaranteed ordering. This changes them to be sorted by their name rather than their type. I can't think of any problems with sorting them by name, as field names have to be unique within a class. Tested in a large project and a sample project. Thanks for the well-organized project, by the way.
|
I'm super sorry for the long delay. I agree that this change makes sense. Thanks for creating the PR! |
|
No problem, appreciate it! Glad this is still maintained. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The fields accessed by the processor have no guaranteed ordering, which I assume is why
fieldsis sorted by type in the first place. In incremental builds, the order seems to change randomly, and this hurts compilation avoidance as then the generated StateSaver classes are different (calls shifted around but functionally not changing).Since
fieldsis being sorted by type, fields of the same type still have no guaranteed ordering. This changes them to be sorted by their name rather than their type. I can't think of any problems with sorting them by name, as field names have to be unique within a class.Tested in a large project and a sample project. Thanks for the well-organized project, by the way.