Skip to content

Skip nested references in relation checking #17947

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
sandersn wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

Skip nested references in relation checking #17947

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
50d1131
Squashed commit of the following:
sandersn Aug 21, 2017
9a1ab5e
Skip nested references in isRelatedTo
sandersn Aug 21, 2017
0404c94
Fix lint
sandersn Aug 21, 2017
a3676df
Test performance improvement:nested reference skip
sandersn Aug 21, 2017
8fd12db
Use maybeKeys, only cache unconstrained type parameters
sandersn Aug 21, 2017
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
45 changes: 41 additions & 4 deletions src/compiler/checker.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -5364,7 +5364,7 @@ namespace ts {
return <InterfaceTypeWithDeclaredMembers>type;
}

function getTypeWithThisArgument(type: Type, thisArgument?: Type): Type {
function getTypeWithThisArgument(type: Type, thisArgument: Type): Type {
if (getObjectFlags(type) & ObjectFlags.Reference) {
const target = (<TypeReference>type).target;
const typeArguments = (<TypeReference>type).typeArguments;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -8834,6 +8834,7 @@ namespace ts {
let sourceStack: Type[];
let targetStack: Type[];
let maybeCount = 0;
let maybeReferences: Map<true>;
let depth = 0;
let expandingFlags = 0;
let overflow = false;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -9192,6 +9193,36 @@ namespace ts {
return result;
}

function getTypePairKey(source: Type, target: Type) {
return relation !== identityRelation || source.id < target.id ? source.id + "," + target.id : target.id + "," + source.id;
}

function alreadyComparingTypeReferences(source: Type, target: Type) {
if (!(getObjectFlags(source) & ObjectFlags.Reference) || !(getObjectFlags(target) & ObjectFlags.Reference)) {
return false;
}
const sourceArguments = (source as TypeReference).typeArguments;
const targetArguments = (source as TypeReference).typeArguments;

const onlyTypeParametersAsArguments =
arrayIsEqualTo(sourceArguments, targetArguments) &&
sourceArguments && sourceArguments.length > 0 &&
every(sourceArguments, t => !!(t.flags & TypeFlags.TypeParameter));
if (!onlyTypeParametersAsArguments) {
return false;
}
const id = getTypePairKey((source as TypeReference).target, (target as TypeReference).target) +
"<" + map(sourceArguments, t => { let c = getConstraintFromTypeParameter(t as TypeParameter); return c ? c.id : "" }).join(',');
if (!maybeReferences) {
maybeReferences = createMap<true>();
}
else if (maybeReferences.has(id)) {
return true;
}
maybeReferences.set(id, true);
return false;
}

// Determine if possibly recursive types are related. First, check if the result is already available in the global cache.
// Second, check if we have already started a comparison of the given two types in which case we assume the result to be true.
// Third, check if both types are part of deeply nested chains of generic type instantiations and if so assume the types are
Expand All @@ -9201,7 +9232,8 @@ namespace ts {
if (overflow) {
return Ternary.False;
}
const id = relation !== identityRelation || source.id < target.id ? source.id + "," + target.id : target.id + "," + source.id;

const id = getTypePairKey(source, target);
const related = relation.get(id);
if (related !== undefined) {
if (reportErrors && related === RelationComparisonResult.Failed) {
Expand All @@ -9213,6 +9245,7 @@ namespace ts {
return related === RelationComparisonResult.Succeeded ? Ternary.True : Ternary.False;
}
}

if (!maybeKeys) {
maybeKeys = [];
sourceStack = [];
Expand All @@ -9230,6 +9263,10 @@ namespace ts {
return Ternary.False;
}
}
if (alreadyComparingTypeReferences(source, target)) {
return Ternary.Maybe;
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@weswigham weswigham Aug 21, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be cached in maybeKeys?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@sandersn sandersn Aug 21, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After discussing it with you: probably yes, as long as we only cache non-constrained type parameters. With the combined maybeKeys, when checking A<T> ==> B<T> and then A<U> ==> B<U>, when we skip A<U>===>B<U> with Ternary.Maybe and later find that they are assignable, we'll also mark A<T>==>B<T> as assignable. Which is what we want.

}

const maybeStart = maybeCount;
maybeKeys[maybeCount] = id;
maybeCount++;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -21262,7 +21299,7 @@ namespace ts {
checkExportsOnMergedDeclarations(node);
const symbol = getSymbolOfNode(node);
const type = <InterfaceType>getDeclaredTypeOfSymbol(symbol);
const typeWithThis = getTypeWithThisArgument(type);
const typeWithThis = getTypeWithThisArgument(type, type.thisType);
const staticType = <ObjectType>getTypeOfSymbol(symbol);
checkTypeParameterListsIdentical(symbol);
checkClassForDuplicateDeclarations(node);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -21510,7 +21547,7 @@ namespace ts {
const firstInterfaceDecl = getDeclarationOfKind<InterfaceDeclaration>(symbol, SyntaxKind.InterfaceDeclaration);
if (node === firstInterfaceDecl) {
const type = <InterfaceType>getDeclaredTypeOfSymbol(symbol);
const typeWithThis = getTypeWithThisArgument(type);
const typeWithThis = getTypeWithThisArgument(type, type.thisType);
// run subsequent checks only if first set succeeded
if (checkInheritedPropertiesAreIdentical(type, node.name)) {
for (const baseType of getBaseTypes(type)) {
Expand Down