-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 50
[MutabilityWithReadOnly] Optimize to prevent excessive memory usage on large specs #813
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
16 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
98df3f9
Initial plan
Copilot 6891fac
Fix MutabilityWithReadOnly rule to avoid out of memory issue by filte…
Copilot 93c4e14
Remove redundant checks from mutability-with-read-only function
Copilot af3e536
Add Array.isArray check for x-ms-mutability defensive programming
Copilot 7142114
Move length check to given clause for maximum efficiency
Copilot b71fdb6
Remove Array.isArray check that changed behavior - keep performance o…
Copilot aaf7003
Simplify to minimal change: only filter readOnly and x-ms-mutability …
Copilot ab900ea
Add comprehensive tests for all readOnly and x-ms-mutability combinat…
Copilot 410cf09
Add tests for properties with omitted readOnly or x-ms-mutability fields
Copilot 7d055aa
Refactor tests to reduce redundancy using helper function and consoli…
Copilot a61fd2f
Change helper function type from any to unknown for better type safety
Copilot 3d9eca9
improve comment
mikeharder 7b0dfe4
Add Rush change file for MutabilityWithReadOnly performance fix
Copilot 7d9c1ff
Update package.json to 2.2.1 and add CHANGELOG entry
Copilot 573ada9
improve changelog
mikeharder c2ad655
Apply suggestion from @mikeharder
mikeharder File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@copilot :
Is it better to have this check moved to "given" clause or keep it here in terms of performance optimization, Code correctness, Readability, Simplicity and maintainability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great question! Here's the analysis:
Moving to
givenclause (&& @['x-ms-mutability'].length > 0):Keeping in function:
.lengthcheck on already-filtered properties)Recommendation: Keep in function. The performance difference is negligible since we already filter out ~99% of properties in the
givenclause. The clarity and maintainability benefits outweigh the tiny performance gain.