| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Heya Ron Buckton (@rbuckton), I've started to run the perf test suite on this PR at 39bb5e7. You can monitor the build here. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Heya Ron Buckton (@rbuckton), I've started to run the parallelized community code test suite on this PR at 39bb5e7. You can monitor the build here. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Heya Ron Buckton (@rbuckton), I've started to run the parallelized Definitely Typed test suite on this PR at 39bb5e7. You can monitor the build here. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Heya Ron Buckton (@rbuckton), I've started to run the extended test suite on this PR at 39bb5e7. You can monitor the build here. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Heya Ron Buckton (@rbuckton), I've started to run the parallelized Definitely Typed test suite on this PR at ea48336. You can monitor the build here. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Heya Ron Buckton (@rbuckton), I've started to run the perf test suite on this PR at ea48336. You can monitor the build here. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Heya Ron Buckton (@rbuckton), I've started to run the extended test suite on this PR at ea48336. You can monitor the build here. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Heya Ron Buckton (@rbuckton), I've started to run the parallelized community code test suite on this PR at ea48336. You can monitor the build here. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
TypeScript Bot (@typescript-bot) perf test |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Heya Ron Buckton (@rbuckton), I've started to run the perf test suite on this PR at 1cf55ef. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Ron Buckton (@rbuckton) Comparison Report - main..49089
System
Hosts
Scenarios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
TypeScript Bot (@typescript-bot) perf test |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Heya Ron Buckton (@rbuckton), I've started to run the perf test suite on this PR at c7fce15. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Ron Buckton (@rbuckton) Comparison Report - main..49089
System
Hosts
Scenarios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a few questions and one suggestion. Overall I think this is the right change, although I'd like to see what others think.
Also, is performance the same? I remember you saying something about it in earlier drafts.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Performance is fairly close. There's unfortunately a little bit more megamorphism due to Decorator and Modifier being in the same array, but the impact has been fairly minimal (less than a tenth of a second in total compile time). The upside is that memory usage dropped across the board, and is especially noticeable in xstate. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
# Conflicts: # src/compiler/checker.ts # src/compiler/transformers/ts.ts # src/compiler/utilities.ts
# Conflicts: # src/testRunner/unittests/tsbuild/helpers.ts
…tions are printed
|
Got slightly ahead of myself with the merge, but I've fixed the test failure in main. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I discovered that this breaks e.g. tsutils as NodeArray isn't compatible with ModifiersArray which is expected here. I see that the plan is to make it a soft failure in 4.8, do you also have a suggestion on how to make the code compatible with both 4.7 and 4.8? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Whilst investigating typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint#5496 I locally upgraded our codebase to v4.8.1-rc and then did not see any relevant TS errors - it wasn't until I manually inspected the code that I noticed the VSCode strike-out decoration on the deprecated members that I found out about the change. From the perspective of an AST consumer - deprecating the now dead properties instead of removing them entirely is a bit of a problem. We'll have to manually audit our entire codebase to find the code that's now broken. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Update tsconfig-paths hook to be compatible with how `updateExportDeclaration` now works in typescript 5. This is from microsoft/TypeScript#49089
Update tsconfig-paths hook to be compatible with how `updateExportDeclaration` now works in typescript 5. This is from microsoft/TypeScript#49089
Update tsconfig-paths hook to be compatible with how `updateExportDeclaration` now works in typescript 5. This is from: microsoft/TypeScript#49089
Decorators are now placed on `modifiers` on TypeScript's syntax trees. Passing decorators separately has been deprecated since v4.8 and removed completely in v5. https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-4-8.html#decorators-are-placed-on-modifiers-on-typescripts-syntax-trees microsoft/TypeScript#49089
Decorators are now placed on `modifiers` on TypeScript's syntax trees. Passing decorators separately has been deprecated since v4.8 and removed completely in v5. https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-4-8.html#decorators-are-placed-on-modifiers-on-typescripts-syntax-trees microsoft/TypeScript#49089
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
This merges the decorators field on Node into the modifiers field in preparation for eventual support for Decorators Stage 3. This is necessary since the version of the Decorators proposal that advanced parses class decorators after the export and default keywords, which is incompatible with our current AST and NodeFactory methods.
To avoid a large amount of complex overloads, we've currently opted to change the decorators parameter on various NodeFactory API methods to only accept null (which we generally don't use in the compiler). Calling the existing NodeFactory API methods with a value for decorators that is not null will result in a deprecation warning, but should otherwise work for the time being. To avoid a major runtime breaking API change in 4.x releases, we likely won't remove the decorators parameter entirely until 5.0.
NOTE: After some consideration, I've amended the approach above to remove the decorators parameter entirely from the main API and only support it through overloads via deprecatedCompat.
This also reorganizes the deprecatedCompat project for easier maintenance, and moves a few deprecated APIs out of compiler to reduce overhead in tsc.js.
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: I've added a large number of reviewers since this pertains to the public API so I can get more eyes on this.