Blocks: Short-circuit validation for identical markup #22506
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
aduth
added
[Feature] Blocks
|
Size Change: 0 B Total Size: 1.11 MB ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
youknowriad
approved these changes
May 21, 2020
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Related: #21703 (comment)
This pull request seeks to optimize block validation (specifically
isEquivalentHTML) to short-circuit astruewhen given two markup strings which are identical. This bypasses the regular the tokenization / equivalence comparison which is relevant for two markup strings which are "equivalent" but not identical.Performance Results:
I was not able to detect a meaningful difference using the
npm run test-performancecommand. It's unclear if this is due to lack of precision of the output, if the test isn't set up in such a way to stress test this behavior, or if the result is not impactful in the grand scheme of the running application.Using the Chrome Performance Profiler, I was able to find a pretty dramatic difference of the function itself.
In development mode, as an average of 4 runs, in a post containing 271 blocks (11052 words):
The Total Time being the same as Self Time in "After" is expected, since in a typical reload, all block markup should be able to leverage this shortcut and bypass all internal function calls. The difference in Total Time is most meaningful here.
Testing Instructions:
Ensure unit tests pass: