Skip to content
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.

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

module: use optional chaining in cjs/loader.js #37238

Conversation

RaisinTen
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@RaisinTen
Copy link
Contributor Author

RaisinTen commented Feb 5, 2021

Benchmark CI for module:
https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/935/

No significant perf regressions
20:33:02 module/module-loader-deep.jscache='false' files=1000 ext='.js'                            *     -3.51 %       ±3.25%  ±4.32%  ±5.63%
20:33:02 module/module-loader.jscache='false' n=1 files=500 dir='rel' name='/index.js'             *     -3.80 %       ±2.97%  ±3.95%  ±5.14%
20:33:02 module/module-loader.jscache='true' n=1000 files=500 dir='abs' name='/'                   *     -1.81 %       ±1.39%  ±1.86%  ±2.44%

Copy link
Contributor

@aduh95 aduh95 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM if benchmark results don't show perf regression

@RaisinTen
Copy link
Contributor Author

@aduh95 benchmark looks good! 🎉

@RaisinTen RaisinTen added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Feb 5, 2021
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Feb 6, 2021

Non-blocking from me, but I think whether the benchmarks look good in this case may be a matter of opinion. It shows three statistically-significant (but also, yes, small) regressions. Might be interesting to run again to see if they are persistent or not.

Benchmark CI re-run for comparison: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/937/

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Feb 9, 2021

Benchmark re-run confirms no significant changes in benchmark results.

Trott pushed a commit to RaisinTen/node that referenced this pull request Feb 9, 2021
PR-URL: nodejs#37238
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Zijian Liu <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]>
@Trott Trott closed this Feb 9, 2021
@Trott Trott force-pushed the module/add-optional-chaining-in-cjs-loader branch from 5abd9c2 to fdd7a87 Compare February 9, 2021 00:40
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Feb 9, 2021

Landed in fdd7a87

@RaisinTen RaisinTen deleted the module/add-optional-chaining-in-cjs-loader branch February 9, 2021 09:28
danielleadams pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 16, 2021
PR-URL: #37238
Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Zijian Liu <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]>
This was referenced Feb 16, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants