-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Remove reportErrors check in relateVariances #55222
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@typescript-bot test this |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the diff-based user code test suite on this PR at df695d9. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the diff-based user code test suite (tsserver) on this PR at df695d9. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the tarball bundle task on this PR at df695d9. You can monitor the build here. |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the extended test suite on this PR at df695d9. You can monitor the build here. |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the parallelized Definitely Typed test suite on this PR at df695d9. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the perf test suite on this PR at df695d9. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the diff-based top-repos suite on this PR at df695d9. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the diff-based top-repos suite (tsserver) on this PR at df695d9. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
Hey @jakebailey, I've packed this into an installable tgz. You can install it for testing by referencing it in your
and then running There is also a playground for this build and an npm module you can use via |
src/compiler/checker.ts
Outdated
// if (entry !== undefined) { | ||
// // If the previous entry and the result disagree, then something has gone wrong. | ||
// Debug.assert(!!(entry & RelationComparisonResult.Succeeded) === (result !== Ternary.False), "Cached relationship does not match recalculated result"); | ||
// } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Probably this is a good thing to leave in, once the actual fix is in, that way we can observe this kind of bug faster.
src/compiler/checker.ts
Outdated
@@ -21951,7 +21956,7 @@ export function createTypeChecker(host: TypeCheckerHost): TypeChecker { | |||
// reveal the reason). | |||
// We can switch on `reportErrors` here, since varianceCheckFailed guarantees we return `False`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This mentions the code I deleted, so I'd have to delete this if this fix is right.
@jakebailey Here are the results of running the user test suite comparing Everything looks good! |
@jakebailey Here are the results of running the user test suite comparing There were infrastructure failures potentially unrelated to your change:
Otherwise... Something interesting changed - please have a look. Details
|
@jakebailey Here they are:
CompilerComparison Report - main..55222
System
Hosts
Scenarios
TSServerComparison Report - main..55222
System
Hosts
Scenarios
StartupComparison Report - main..55222
System
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
@jakebailey Here are the results of running the top-repos suite comparing Everything looks good! |
Hey @jakebailey, it looks like the DT test run failed. Please check the log for more details. |
@jakebailey Here are the results of running the top-repos suite comparing Everything looks good! |
7% check degradation in xstate, ouch @typescript-bot perf test this faster |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the abridged perf test suite on this PR at 5902018. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
@jakebailey Here they are:Comparison Report - main..55222
System
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
This PR failed RWC but the diffs aren't correctly being pushed. Need to figure that out. |
@typescript-bot perf test this faster |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the tsc-only perf test suite on this PR at 5902018. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
@jakebailey Here they are:
CompilerComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
@typescript-bot perf test this faster |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the tsc-only perf test suite on this PR at 2ef27bc. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
@typescript-bot perf test this bun |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the bun perf test suite on this PR at 2ef27bc. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
@jakebailey Here they are:
CompilerComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
Seems like quite a few percent in xstate. Very odd but I'll have to profile it I guess. |
@jakebailey Here they are:
CompilerComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
StartupComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
It's been awhile, but I'll chime in, since I've been working on variance stuff so much: the variance result and non-variance result for a comparison are supposed to be the same. If they're not, many strange things happen. Like this. It's why |
Just to be clear, are you saying this PR is "good", in that it removes a place where we can produce differing variance results? Or am I misunderstanding? (Generally I want to make progress on this PR though I have not figured out the perf problem yet...) |
@typescript-bot perf test this |
Heya @jakebailey, I've started to run the regular perf test suite on this PR at 26f1441. You can monitor the build here. Update: The results are in! |
@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 |
@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: |
Surely if I keep retrying it, it will eventually not break perf, right? @typescript-bot perf test this faster |
@jakebailey Here they are:
tscComparison Report - baseline..pr
System info unknown
Hosts
Scenarios
Developer Information: |
Fixes #55217
As noted by @Andarist, this check is what causes things to differ between errors and non-error modes in relation, causing oddities when the same relation is observed in both ways but in different orders.
No doubt this is a bad idea but I wanted to run the test suite to see what happens.
Bunch of WIP code is left in the PR, I'll remove/refactor it if this code actually looks acceptable.