Skip to content
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

Chore: refactor config hash caching in CLIEngine #9260

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 8, 2017

Conversation

not-an-aardvark
Copy link
Member

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)

Previously, CLIEngine would store the last config object when executing on multiple files, as a performance optimization to avoid rehashing configs if the same config was used for multiple files.

This can be better implemented by using a WeakMap to map config objects to hash results.

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?

No

@not-an-aardvark not-an-aardvark added the chore This change is not user-facing label Sep 8, 2017
@eslintbot
Copy link

LGTM

@mention-bot
Copy link

@not-an-aardvark, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @nzakas, @gyandeeps and @mysticatea to be potential reviewers.

Previously, CLIEngine would store the last config object when executing on multiple files, as a performance optimization to avoid rehashing configs if the same config was used for multiple files.

This can be better implemented by using a WeakMap to map config objects to hash results.
@eslintbot
Copy link

LGTM

@not-an-aardvark not-an-aardvark merged commit 5d7eb81 into master Sep 8, 2017
@not-an-aardvark not-an-aardvark deleted the cli-engine-hash-of-config-for branch September 8, 2017 22:58
@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 8, 2018
@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot added the archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion label Mar 8, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion chore This change is not user-facing
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants