-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.2k
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
refactor: undefined check for tls_wrap #37424
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
I have a 100% wrong rate on benchmark predictions lately, but I'm going to guess that this one will be fine. Shouldn't be a hot path, I don't think? |
Be aware that the behavior is being changed here with the use of |
Thanks for your reminder, fixed in the commit 41b5267b180a8d88854dcf13709ec15eabdce169 |
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.
I'm also going to predict the benchmark results will be fine, and it improves the code readability.
Benchmark results show some regression, but it might be a false positive:
Spawning another CI to confirm results: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/954/ (queued, will 404 until it starts) |
The benchmark 952 is an old commit which uses I guess that the result of the benchmark 954 would be fine |
Benchmark results confirmed 🤔
|
FYI, benchmark 951 was testing fae6956, 952 was testing 41b5267. |
Do we need a new benchmark run? |
Yes, I think. Because it has been a lot of days since the last benchmark attempt |
why the benchmark was aborted? @aduh95 |
The machine stopped responding 🤷♂️ |
Let me try to run the benchmark locally |
The
if-else
check is very long and redundant, I think we can refactor it with??
operator.Benchmark for this module is required, let's see whether this patch would have a negative effect on performance or not.