Refactor name resolution to separate component #57974
Merged
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
jakebailey
reviewed
Mar 27, 2024
dragomirtitian
force-pushed
the
refactor-name-resolution
branch
from
c414a94
to
b3a07d6
Compare
jakebailey
reviewed
Mar 27, 2024
|
@typescript-bot perf test this |
|
@jakebailey Here they are:
tscComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
tsserverComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
startupComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@typescript-bot perf test this faster |
|
@jakebailey Here they are:
tscComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dragomirtitian
commented
Mar 28, 2024
weswigham
approved these changes
Mar 28, 2024
|
@typescript-bot perf test this |
| // If `result === lastSelfReferenceLocation.symbol`, that means that we are somewhere inside `lastSelfReferenceLocation` looking up a name, and resolving to `lastLocation` itself. | ||
| // That means that this is a self-reference of `lastLocation`, and shouldn't count this when considering whether `lastLocation` is used. | ||
| if (isUse && result && (!lastSelfReferenceLocation || result !== lastSelfReferenceLocation.symbol)) { | ||
| result.isReferenced! |= meaning; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How safe is logic like this to exist outside of the checker/binder?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, this isn't safe at all in the first place. It's mutating a field directly on the Symbol, which will never be reset in incremental compilation in the language service, but whose value should change as the file does. I don't know how this crops up as a visible error in the language service, but it almost definitely does. But it also has for... forever? And we haven't run into it yet? So.... pass. Deal with it later?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of the 3 kinds of reference tracking we are doing, this one is like number 1 most likely to be buggy, but it's only used for unused reference tracking, unlike NodeLinks["isVisible"] and NodeLinks["referenced"] both of which specifically track usages for imports in .d.ts and .js emit, respectively. So bugs in this one are probably rare to see reported, since usually they only result in missing suggestion diagnostics.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
...But if you do happen to know of issues along the lines of "this isn't marked as unused after I delete the code using it in this way" it's because this field here isn't on SymbolLinks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm going to guess that it doesn't crop up as a problem because within a file that changes, we always blow away the information; in a file that stays the same, the information is still usually accurate.
I'm going to guess there's a bug to do with symbol merging across files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we maybe also move this to a markUsage callback? I don't think this currently introduces any new bugs, since this is not called from anywhere else, and the future use I have in mind for this in the minimalist resolver will not really care about the usages.
|
@DanielRosenwasser Here they are:
tscComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
tsserverComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
startupComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dragomirtitian
force-pushed
the
refactor-name-resolution
branch
from
1fc5f62
to
0c53615
Compare
|
I guess I don't really have any other comments here; on the whole, it sure seems like a lot of checker functions needing to be passed into... I don't really have a good vision of what the next change that requires this looks like, though, to understand how impactful this is. So, soft +1 from me, and I think others know better than me 😅 |
DanielRosenwasser
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2024
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.
No description provided.