[DO NOT REVIEW] Perf testing module-ified TypeScript compiler, take two #50811
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
This step makes further commits look clearer by unindenting all of the top level namespaces preemptively.
This step makes all implicit namespace accesses explicit, e.g. "Node" turns into "ts.Node".
This step converts each file into an exported module by hoisting the namespace bodies into the global scope and transferring internal markers down onto declarations as needed. The namespaces are reconstructed as "barrel"-style modules, which are identical to the old namespace objects in structure. These reconstructed namespaces are then imported in the newly module-ified files, making existing expressions like "ts." valid.
This step converts as many explicit accesses as possible in favor of direct imports from the modules in which things were declared. This restores the code (as much as possible) back to how it looked originally before the explicitify step, e.g. instead of "ts.Node" and "ts.Symbol", we have just "Node" and "Symbol".
Now that we are modules, there's no reason to ban multiple namespaces per file; each file is its own scope and declaring a namespace won't merge it into any other files.
This project is the same as the (soon added) typescript project.
If these are regular comments, then they won't appear in our d.ts files. But, now we are relying on api-extractor to produce out final merged d.ts files, so they need to be present in the "input" d.ts files, meaning they have to be JSDoc comments. These comments only work today because all of our builds load their TS files from scratch, so they see the actual source files and their non-JSDoc comments. The comments also need to be attached to a declaration, not floating, otherwise they won't be used by api-extractor, so move them if needed.
These appear to break api-extractor, and we won't have a fix until TS
starts to emit d.ts files using `import type { ... }` for imports that
aren't explicitly written in the source files.
The import expression for the ETW trace types breaks API extractor; it outputs a named import for a non-existent name in the module rather than emitting a default import. For now, redeclare the type locally and then use a conditional type to verify that what we have is compatible with the upstream type when type checking locally.
This configures the existing build tasks to use esbuild by defualt. If using the plain files is desired, passing `--bundle=false` will build using plain files and still produce a runnable system.
typescript-bot
added
Author: Team
For Uncommitted Bug
|
Thanks for the PR! It looks like you've changed the TSServer protocol in some way. Please ensure that any changes here don't break consumers of the current TSServer API. For some extra review, we'll ping @sheetalkamat, @amcasey, @mjbvz, @minestarks for you. Feel free to loop in other consumers/maintainers if necessary |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
@typescript-bot perf test this faster This is the "baseline", i.e. just esbuild on src. |
|
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the abridged perf test suite on this PR at f37e88f. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
|
@jakebailey Here they are:Comparison Report - main..50811
System
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@typescript-bot perf test this faster Now, with |
|
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the abridged perf test suite on this PR at 5c3013d. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
|
@jakebailey Here they are:Comparison Report - main..50811
System
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 tasks
|
Closing; I've summarized this on #49332 (comment). |
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.
I can't reopen #50765 due to my rebasing, so I'm opening it again so I can test downleveling of
const/let.