-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
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
PM-17921 change the GenerateAccessData method to process lists in parallel #5552
PM-17921 change the GenerateAccessData method to process lists in parallel #5552
Conversation
Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5552 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 45.66% 45.65% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 1597 1597
Lines 72490 72502 +12
Branches 6495 6493 -2
==========================================
Hits 33101 33101
- Misses 37974 37986 +12
Partials 1415 1415 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
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.
⛏️ Just removal of the commented code and GenerateAccessData
method
src/Core/Tools/ReportFeatures/MemberAccessCipherDetailsQuery.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
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.
⛏️ We should also get rid of the GenerateAccessData method itself
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.
Removed old method
|
🎟️ Tracking
https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-17921
📔 Objective
Testing the performance of the MemberAccessCipherDetailsQuery with an organization with a large amount of members. Found we could reduce the response time of this method by 300ms when processing lists in parallel.
📸 Screenshots
⏰ Reminders before review
🦮 Reviewer guidelines
:+1:
) or similar for great changes:memo:
) or ℹ️ (:information_source:
) for notes or general info:question:
) for questions:thinking:
) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:
) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion:art:
) for suggestions / improvements:x:
) or:warning:
) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention:seedling:
) or ♻️ (:recycle:
) for future improvements or indications of technical debt:pick:
) for minor or nitpick changes