compiler: Represent pruned scopes instead of inlining #29781
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
There are a few places where we want to check whether a value actually got memoized, and we currently have to infer this based on values that "should" have a scope and whether a corresponding scope actually exists. This PR adds a new ReactiveStatement variant to model a reactive scope block that was pruned for some reason, and updates all the passes that prune scopes to instead produce this new variant. [ghstack-poisoned]
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
This was referenced Jun 6, 2024
|
Comparing: a0a435d...f558784 Critical size changesIncludes critical production bundles, as well as any change greater than 2%:
Significant size changesIncludes any change greater than 0.2%: Expand to show
|
There are a few places where we want to check whether a value actually got memoized, and we currently have to infer this based on values that "should" have a scope and whether a corresponding scope actually exists. This PR adds a new ReactiveStatement variant to model a reactive scope block that was pruned for some reason, and updates all the passes that prune scopes to instead produce this new variant. [ghstack-poisoned]
josephsavona
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2024
There are a few places where we want to check whether a value actually got memoized, and we currently have to infer this based on values that "should" have a scope and whether a corresponding scope actually exists. This PR adds a new ReactiveStatement variant to model a reactive scope block that was pruned for some reason, and updates all the passes that prune scopes to instead produce this new variant. ghstack-source-id: 91ba77d130b2e78435456dcf01fd76dfb5aa2ad3 Pull Request resolved: #29781
victor-0x29a
reviewed
Jun 6, 2024
compiler/packages/babel-plugin-react-compiler/src/ReactiveScopes/BuildReactiveBlocks.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
This was referenced Jun 6, 2024
There are a few places where we want to check whether a value actually got memoized, and we currently have to infer this based on values that "should" have a scope and whether a corresponding scope actually exists. This PR adds a new ReactiveStatement variant to model a reactive scope block that was pruned for some reason, and updates all the passes that prune scopes to instead produce this new variant. [ghstack-poisoned]
There are a few places where we want to check whether a value actually got memoized, and we currently have to infer this based on values that "should" have a scope and whether a corresponding scope actually exists. This PR adds a new ReactiveStatement variant to model a reactive scope block that was pruned for some reason, and updates all the passes that prune scopes to instead produce this new variant. [ghstack-poisoned]
There are a few places where we want to check whether a value actually got memoized, and we currently have to infer this based on values that "should" have a scope and whether a corresponding scope actually exists. This PR adds a new ReactiveStatement variant to model a reactive scope block that was pruned for some reason, and updates all the passes that prune scopes to instead produce this new variant. [ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced Jun 7, 2024
josephsavona
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2024
There are a few places where we want to check whether a value actually got memoized, and we currently have to infer this based on values that "should" have a scope and whether a corresponding scope actually exists. This PR adds a new ReactiveStatement variant to model a reactive scope block that was pruned for some reason, and updates all the passes that prune scopes to instead produce this new variant. ghstack-source-id: aea6dab469acb1f20058b85cb6f9aafab5d167cd Pull Request resolved: #29781
This was referenced Jul 25, 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.
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
There are a few places where we want to check whether a value actually got memoized, and we currently have to infer this based on values that "should" have a scope and whether a corresponding scope actually exists. This PR adds a new ReactiveStatement variant to model a reactive scope block that was pruned for some reason, and updates all the passes that prune scopes to instead produce this new variant.