perf: optimize index.spec.mjs for memory #673
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies memory management settings and the testing framework. It reduces the Node.js memory allocation in workflow scripts, introduces the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
test/index.spec.mjs (3)
18-25: Consider enhancing the discriminator parameterWhile the cache busting implementation is good, consider making the discriminator more robust.
-const importFresh = async (path, discriminator) => { - return (await import(`${path}?discriminator=${discriminator}`)).default; +const importFresh = async (path, discriminator = Date.now()) => { + const bustCache = typeof discriminator === 'undefined' ? Date.now() : discriminator; + return (await import(`${path}?bust=${bustCache}`)).default; };This change:
- Provides a default value using
Date.now()- Renames the query parameter to be more explicit
- Adds type checking for undefined
Line range hint
37-58: Consider additional memory optimizations in setup/teardownThe GC calls in
beforeEachandafterEachare good, but consider additional optimizations:beforeEach(async () => { + data = null; // Help GC by explicitly nullifying large objects gc(); Items = await importFresh(itemPath); }); afterEach(async () => { delete require.cache[itemPath]; + Items = null; // Help GC by explicitly nullifying large objects gc(); });
319-320: Consider parallel test execution for better performanceWhile the current sequential execution is clean, consider running the tests in parallel for better performance.
-['index.js', 'index.mjs'].forEach(test); +await Promise.all(['index.js', 'index.mjs'].map(test));However, before implementing this change, please verify that:
- Tests are truly independent
- Parallel execution doesn't cause memory spikes
- Test cleanup is properly handled in parallel scenarios
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
.github/workflows/regression.sh(1 hunks).github/workflows/static.yaml(1 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)test/index.spec.mjs(8 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
.github/workflows/regression.sh (1)
4-4: Verify memory requirements for regression tests
The memory allocation has been significantly reduced from 8GB to 2GB. While this aligns with the PR's optimization goals, we should verify that 2GB is sufficient for regression tests.
Consider implementing memory usage monitoring in CI to track actual memory requirements over time.
✅ Verification successful
The previous commands didn't yield useful results, so let's try a different approach to understand the testing setup and memory requirements by:
- Locating the regression workflow file
- Checking for memory-related configurations in the codebase
- Looking for test-related configurations in package.json
Let's examine the test setup and potential memory-intensive operations to better understand the memory requirements.
Let's examine the test data and regression test implementation to understand the memory requirements better, since we can see from package.json that there's a JSON data file being validated and separate regression tests.
2GB memory limit should be sufficient for regression tests
The analysis reveals that the memory requirements for regression tests are modest:
- The regression tests primarily work with API data fetched at runtime
- The local JSON data file is only 47MB
- Tests perform simple filtering and deduplication operations
- No memory-intensive operations are present in the test suite
The reduction from 8GB to 2GB should not impact test reliability as:
- The test operations are lightweight (filtering, assertions)
- Data processing is done in small chunks (per-warframe, per-weapon)
- No large-scale data transformations or memory-intensive operations are visible
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check historical memory usage in regression tests
git log -p --grep="NODE_OPTIONS.*max_old_space_size" .github/workflows/regression.sh
# Look for memory-related test failures in recent runs
gh run list --workflow=regression.yaml --json conclusion,name,url --jq '.[] | select(.conclusion=="failure") | {name, url}'
Length of output: 125
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if regression.yaml exists and its content
fd -e yaml -e yml regression
fd -e yaml -e yml regression --exec cat {}
# Look for test scripts or configuration files that might indicate memory requirements
rg -l "max_old_space_size"
rg "memory" package.json
Length of output: 129
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the test script content and size
cat package.json
rg -A 5 "\"test\":" package.json
# Look for large test files or test data
fd -t f -e test.js -e spec.js --exec du -h {}
# Check if there are any memory-intensive operations in test files
rg -l "large|huge|memory|intensive" -g "*test*" -g "*spec*"
Length of output: 3399
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the size of data files that might be loaded during tests
du -h data/json/All.json
# Look at the regression test file content
cat test/index.regression.spec.mjs
# Check for any large data processing in test files
rg -C 5 "data/json" test/
Length of output: 2256
package.json (1)
65-65: Verify expose-gc package security and compatibility
The addition of expose-gc for manual garbage collection aligns with the PR's memory optimization goals.
Consider documenting the garbage collection strategy in the project's README or contributing guidelines to help maintainers understand the memory management approach.
✅ Verification successful
Security vulnerabilities found in expose-gc dependencies
The npm audit reveals multiple high severity vulnerabilities in the package dependencies. While expose-gc itself is aligned with memory optimization goals, its dependency tree introduces security risks.
- High severity vulnerabilities found in:
- cross-spawn (ReDoS vulnerability)
- fast-json-patch (Prototype Pollution)
- got (UNIX socket redirect vulnerability)
- http-cache-semantics (ReDoS vulnerability)
- semver-regex (ReDoS vulnerability)
Let's verify if these vulnerabilities actually affect the expose-gc package by checking its direct dependencies:
expose-gc package is safe to use
The package has no dependencies and is installed as a dev dependency, so the previously reported vulnerabilities are unrelated to expose-gc. The package is lightweight, requires Node.js >=4, and is compatible with the project's Node.js version.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package security
npm audit expose-gc
# Verify package compatibility with Node versions in CI
rg "node-version" .github/workflows/ -A 1
Length of output: 6040
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check direct dependencies of expose-gc
npm info expose-gc dependencies
# Look for package.lock.json entries related to expose-gc
rg "expose-gc" package-lock.json -A 5
Length of output: 932
.github/workflows/static.yaml (1)
101-101: Verify memory requirements across Node.js versions
The 2GB memory limit is applied uniformly across all Node.js versions in the test matrix. Different Node.js versions may have different memory characteristics.
Consider:
- Implementing per-Node-version memory limits if needed
- Adding memory usage monitoring to track differences across Node versions
- Documenting memory requirements for different Node versions in the README
✅ Verification successful
Memory limit appears reasonable and well-configured
The 2GB memory limit is appropriately set only for the test job, while other memory-intensive operations like build and regression tests use different configurations. The test matrix covers Node.js versions 16, LTS, and 20, and the workflow shows:
- Build and data generation steps are separated from tests
- Regression tests use a different NODE_OPTIONS setting (--experimental-fetch)
- Memory limit is specifically scoped to the test phase
Since there are no memory-related failures in the logs and the configuration follows good practices by separating concerns, the current memory setting appears to be working well across all Node.js versions.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check test runs across Node versions for memory-related failures
gh run list --workflow=static.yaml --json conclusion,name,url --jq '.[] | select(.conclusion=="failure") | {name, url}'
# Look for memory warnings in test logs
gh run list --workflow=static.yaml --json databaseId --jq '.[0].databaseId' | xargs -I {} gh run view {} --log | grep -i "memory"
Length of output: 645
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the workflow file for any memory-related configurations and Node.js versions
cat .github/workflows/static.yaml
# Let's also check for any memory-related issues or discussions in recent commits
git log --grep="memory\|NODE_OPTIONS" --pretty=format:"%h %s" -n 5
# Check if there are any memory-related configurations in package.json
fd package.json --exec cat {} | jq 'select(.scripts != null) | .scripts'
Length of output: 4100
test/index.spec.mjs (3)
5-5: LGTM: Good addition for memory management
The addition of expose-gc is appropriate for managing memory during tests, aligning with the PR's optimization goals.
Line range hint 1-320: Verify overall memory optimization effectiveness
Let's verify that the memory optimizations are working as intended across the entire test suite.
✅ Verification successful
Memory management implementation is robust and well-structured
The memory optimization strategy is properly implemented with multiple safeguards:
- Consistent garbage collection (
gc()) calls in test lifecycle hooks (beforeEach/afterEach) - Proper cleanup of require cache after each test
- Immutable test data through
Object.freeze - Controlled object initialization with
Itemsconstructor - Appropriate use of array operations (filter/map) without memory leaks
The implementation follows best practices for memory management in Node.js testing environments.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Analyze memory patterns across test runs
# Look for potential memory leaks in test patterns
rg -A 5 "wrapConstr|importFresh" --type js
# Check for large object allocations
rg -A 5 "new \w+\([^)]*\)" --type js
# Look for missed opportunities for garbage collection
rg -B 5 -A 5 "describe|it\(" --type js | grep -v "gc()"
Length of output: 324
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's analyze the memory management patterns more specifically
# Check for gc() calls in test setup/teardown
rg -B 2 -A 2 "gc\(\)" test/
# Look for memory-related cleanup patterns
rg -B 2 -A 2 "beforeEach|afterEach" test/
# Check object initialization and cleanup
rg "new Items|delete require\.cache" test/
# Check for potential memory leaks in test data handling
rg "Object\.freeze|\.filter\(|\.map\(" test/
Length of output: 4556
98-100: Verify GC effectiveness in i18n tests
The i18n tests handle large string data. Let's verify if the GC calls are effectively managing memory.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the GC usage and memory management in the tests.
Let me try a different approach to analyze the memory management patterns.
GC implementation is appropriate for i18n tests
The GC implementation is properly handling memory management in the test suite:
- GC is called
beforeEachtest to ensure a clean slate - The large i18n file (44MB) is properly managed with fresh imports
- Memory cleanup is reinforced with
afterEachhooks that clear require cache and run GC - Tests are properly isolated with the
importFreshutility to prevent memory leaks
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check memory usage patterns in i18n-related code
# Look for large string allocations or memory retention
# Search for i18n-related files and their sizes
find . -type f -name "*i18n*.json" -exec du -h {} \;
# Look for potential memory leaks in i18n handling
rg -A 5 "i18n.*\{.*\}" --type js
Length of output: 650
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check GC usage patterns in tests
rg -B 2 -A 2 "beforeEach\(gc\)" --type js
# Look for memory-intensive operations in test files
rg -B 2 -A 5 "importFresh|require\(.*i18n" --type js
# Check the implementation of importFresh
ast-grep --pattern 'function importFresh($_) { $$$ }'
Length of output: 154
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the test file and its content
fd "index.spec" --type f --exec cat {}
# Look for GC-related patterns in test files
rg -B 3 -A 3 "gc\(\)" --type js
# Check for memory-intensive operations
rg -B 2 -A 5 "Items\s*=\s*await" --type js
Length of output: 12174
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
test/index.spec.mjs (2)
18-25: Consider enhancing cache busting mechanismWhile the discriminator parameter addition is good for cache busting, consider using a more robust identifier.
-const importFresh = async (path, discriminator) => { - return (await import(`${path}?discriminator=${discriminator}`)).default; +const importFresh = async (path, discriminator = Date.now()) => { + const bustCache = `${discriminator}-${Math.random().toString(36).slice(2)}`; + return (await import(`${path}?discriminator=${bustCache}`)).default; };
104-104: Consider standardizing garbage collection approachWhile gc() calls are added before some test sections, consider standardizing this approach across all test blocks for consistency.
Consider moving the gc() calls to a shared beforeEach hook at the describe level:
describe('drops', () => { - beforeEach(gc); + beforeEach(async () => { + gc(); + // Any other setup needed + }); // ... tests });Also applies to: 128-128, 178-178
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
test/index.spec.mjs(7 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
test/index.spec.mjs (5)
5-5: LGTM: Good addition for memory management
The addition of expose-gc is appropriate for managing memory during tests.
37-48: LGTM: Well-structured initialization
Good use of Object.freeze() to prevent accidental mutations of test data. The function effectively encapsulates initialization logic.
50-64: LGTM: Robust test framework setup with proper memory management
The test framework setup demonstrates good practices:
- Strategic garbage collection calls
- Proper cleanup in hooks
- Clear separation of setup and teardown logic
326-326: LGTM: Clean test execution approach
Good use of array iteration for running tests against both file types, keeping the code DRY.
Line range hint 1-326: Verify memory optimization impact
The changes look good for memory optimization, but let's verify the impact.
Consider adding memory usage monitoring:
- Add memory usage logging in critical test sections
- Consider using
process.memoryUsage()to track memory consumption - Add memory thresholds for CI/CD pipeline
✅ Verification successful
Memory optimization changes are well-implemented with proper safeguards
The verification shows good memory management practices:
- Garbage collection is strategically placed in test lifecycle hooks (
beforeEachandafterEach) - Node.js memory configurations are properly set in CI/CD workflows
- No circular references detected in variable assignments
- Test cleanup is thorough with explicit
undefinedassignments and cache clearing
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for memory-related configurations and patterns
# Check for memory-related Node.js configurations
echo "Checking for Node.js memory configurations..."
find . -type f -name "*.json" -o -name "*.sh" -o -name "*.yaml" | xargs grep -l "max_old_space_size"
# Check for garbage collection patterns
echo "Checking for garbage collection usage..."
rg "gc\(\)" test/
# Check for potential memory leaks (circular references in test setup)
echo "Checking for potential circular references..."
ast-grep --pattern 'const $var = $_; $var = $_'
Length of output: 657
TobiTenno
force-pushed
the
optimize-test
branch
from
e6ab99f to
e167bcb
Compare
TobiTenno
force-pushed
the
optimize-test
branch
from
e167bcb to
cfe03d3
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
test/index.spec.mjs (4)
18-25: Enhance theimportFreshfunction implementationThe function could be improved for better handling of the optional discriminator parameter.
Consider this implementation:
/** * Use for fresh imports * @param {string} path to import - * @param {string?} discriminator extra query param to force cache bust + * @param {string} [discriminator=Date.now()] extra query param to force cache bust * @returns {Promise<module>} */ -const importFresh = async (path, discriminator) => { - return (await import(`${path}?discriminator=${discriminator}`)).default; +const importFresh = async (path, discriminator = Date.now()) => { + return (await import(`${path}?cache=${discriminator}`)).default; };This change:
- Provides a default value for discriminator
- Uses a more conventional query parameter name
- Ensures consistent cache busting
104-104: Standardize garbage collection across test blocksThe garbage collection calls are inconsistent across different test blocks.
Consider standardizing the approach:
- Add a helper function for consistent GC:
const runWithGC = (fn) => async () => { gc(); await fn(); gc(); };
- Use it consistently in test blocks:
- beforeEach(gc); + beforeEach(runWithGC(async () => {})); it('should populate with a truthy boolean', async () => {Also applies to: 128-128, 178-178
324-326: Consider parallel execution and error handlingThe test execution could be enhanced for better reliability and performance.
Consider these improvements:
-['index.js', 'index.mjs'].forEach(test); +// Run tests sequentially to avoid memory pressure +['index.js', 'index.mjs'].reduce( + (promise, file) => promise.then(() => { + console.log(`Running tests for ${file}...`); + return new Promise((resolve) => { + test(file); + resolve(); + }).catch(error => { + console.error(`Failed to run tests for ${file}:`, error); + throw error; + }); + }), + Promise.resolve() +);This change:
- Ensures sequential execution
- Adds error handling
- Improves visibility of test progress
Line range hint
1-326: Overall assessment: Approved with suggestions for enhancementThe changes effectively optimize memory usage through proper garbage collection, improved test organization, and better cache management. The implementation aligns well with the PR objectives of optimizing memory performance during testing.
While the core changes are solid, consider implementing the suggested improvements for:
- Enhanced error handling in setup and execution
- Memory leak detection
- Standardized garbage collection approach
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
.github/workflows/regression.sh(1 hunks).github/workflows/static.yaml(1 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)test/index.spec.mjs(7 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- .github/workflows/static.yaml
- package.json
- .github/workflows/regression.sh
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.1265.9 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
What did you fix?
optimize the test run for index.spec.mjs
Reproduction steps
Evidence/screenshot/link to line
Considerations
Summary by CodeRabbit