Chore: create report translators lazily #9221
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)
[x] Other, please explain:
What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
This updates
Linter#verify
to only create a report translating function for a given rule after the rule has already reported a problem for a given file. When running ESLint on any given file, it's common for a vast majority of rules to not report any errors. This avoids creating an extra two functions in the common case, which has a significant effect on performance because creatingruleContext
s is a hot path.I tested the performance impact by running ESLint on its own codebase 5 times with and without this change applied, and taking the average time of the 5 runs in each case.
(I added
lib/linter.js
as an ignore pattern because this change modifies the contents oflib/linter.js
, which could skew the results.)Without this change applied, the average time was 15.11s. With this change applied, the average time was 14.66s, which is around a 3% end-to-end performance boost.
npm run perf
reports no change in performance. I suspect this is because thenpm run perf
test includes an unusually large number of reported errors (see #9184)Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Nothing in particular