-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.7k
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
fix(scheduler): getNow detection can randomly fail (fix #9632) #9667
Merged
yyx990803
merged 1 commit into
vuejs:dev
from
felixbuenemann:fix-getnow-detection-randomly-failing
Mar 11, 2019
Merged
fix(scheduler): getNow detection can randomly fail (fix #9632) #9667
yyx990803
merged 1 commit into
vuejs:dev
from
felixbuenemann:fix-getnow-detection-randomly-failing
Mar 11, 2019
+1
−1
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 previous detection code compared time stamps based on Date.now() which are not monotonic, so the check could fail due to clock skew or adjustments. This fix changes the check to compare against performance.now() if it is supported, because it is monotonic (strictly increasing).
kiku-jw
pushed a commit
to kiku-jw/vue
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2019
The previous detection code compared time stamps based on Date.now() which are not monotonic, so the check could fail due to clock skew or adjustments. This fix changes the check to compare against performance.now() if it is supported, because it is monotonic (strictly increasing).
kiku-jw
pushed a commit
to kiku-jw/vue
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2019
fix vuejs#9729 This reverts vuejs#9667, but also fixes the original issue vuejs#9632 by skipping the check in IE altogether (since all IE use low-res event timestamps).
This was referenced Aug 29, 2019
This was referenced Sep 22, 2019
Lostlover
pushed a commit
to Lostlover/vue
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 10, 2019
The previous detection code compared time stamps based on Date.now() which are not monotonic, so the check could fail due to clock skew or adjustments. This fix changes the check to compare against performance.now() if it is supported, because it is monotonic (strictly increasing).
Lostlover
pushed a commit
to Lostlover/vue
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 10, 2019
fix vuejs#9729 This reverts vuejs#9667, but also fixes the original issue vuejs#9632 by skipping the check in IE altogether (since all IE use low-res event timestamps).
This was referenced Jan 20, 2020
This was referenced Feb 24, 2020
This was referenced Mar 4, 2020
This was referenced Apr 15, 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.
The previous detection code compared time stamps based on Date.now()
which are not monotonic, so the check could fail due to clock skew or
adjustments.
This fix changes the check to compare against performance.now() if it is
supported, because it is monotonic (strictly increasing).
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check at least one)
Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (check one)
If yes, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications:
The PR fulfills these requirements:
dev
branch for v2.x (or to a previous version branch), not themaster
branchfix #xxx[,#xxx]
, where "xxx" is the issue number)If adding a new feature, the PR's description includes:
Other information:
This is a rebases version of PR #9647, since it was merged incomplete.
See the discussion in #9632 and #9647 for additional info.
This needs to be backported to the 2.6 branch.