-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 232
perf: avoid MeasurementUnit enum boxing allocations #5218
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
Open
jamescrosswell
wants to merge
7
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
fix/issue-4844-measurementunit-alloc
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+119
−8
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f0cdc3e
perf: avoid MeasurementUnit enum boxing allocations
jamescrosswell 4a7a2ec
Generate predefined names at runtime/startup
jamescrosswell 9e9b00e
Format code
getsentry-bot f957b12
fix(metrics): preserve lowercase MeasurementUnit serialization
jamescrosswell e56ae80
test(metrics): guard MeasurementUnit enum-name mappings
jamescrosswell 9e3fe7d
test: make MeasurementUnit enum-coverage tests framework-compatible
jamescrosswell 7cae1ec
test: make MeasurementUnit enum sync tests net48-compatible
jamescrosswell File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
thought:
This is a similar implementation a coding agent on my end suggested when I gave it a try when looking at it with a friend of mine just last weekend 😉.
I'm not too certain if I'm happy with this approach, though:
string-arrays)On the other hand, this (or a similar) implementation is necessary, in order to not change the
IEquatable-semantics.We were then experimenting with the struct only having a
stringfield,but that would change the Equality-semantics, where
MeasurementUnit.Duration.Millisecond == MeasurementUnit.Custom("millisecond")stringfield: would now become equal, being a behavioral changeUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
wait ... actually ... I believe I am wrong concerning the size ... at least partially wrong
System.Enum+System.StringUnitKindenum (byte) +System.Int32+System.StringSo we are only increasing the size of the
structby 4B on 32-bit systems/processes.Yeah ... that's neglectable considering we no longer box to
System.Enum.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.
about the Equals-Semantics
If we would only keep a
stringfield, assigning thestringvia aswitchon constructions, we would simplify the code, reduce the struct size to 4B/8B (32-/64-bit systems); but we would change the Equals, as it would no longer matter whether theMeasurementUnitwas constructed viaMeasurementUnit.Customor the respective implicit-ennum-conversion.This being a behavioral change, we could simplify
MeasurementUnitin the next Major ... or should we keep the Equals-Behavior as is, where there is a difference how theMeasurementUnitwas constructed.What do you think?
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.
To err on the side of caution (since this API is probably quite widely used already), maybe we delay the behavioural change (and saving the extra 4B) until the next major release.