-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Add TSC meeting 28-November-2024 transcript (#551)
Co-authored-by: ESLint Bot <eslint[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
- Loading branch information
1 parent
70fbf43
commit 935673f
Showing
1 changed file
with
108 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ | ||
# 11/28/2024 ESLint TSC Meeting Transcript | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Hi! | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Hi! | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** nzakas will not be present today, so we can start | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Yes, just the two of us today | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Let's start with statuses. I made a follow-up refactor PR that adds missing properties in `meta.defaultOptions` of core rules and simplifies getting options in several rules. Also added new `ignoreComputedKeys` option in the `sort-keys` rule and enabled `eslint-plugin-eslint-plugin` in `@eslint/*` language plugins. | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** I've been adding type tests for the language plugins and triaging several issues. I'm also working on preparing an RFC for multithread linting. | ||
* 👍 @mdjermanovic | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** RFC Duty schedule | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** This week: @fasttime | ||
December 2: @nzakas | ||
December 9: @mdjermanovic | ||
December 16: @fasttime | ||
* 👍 @fasttime | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** We had an action item from the meeting before the previous one, to compare performances starting from ESLint v9.11.1 | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Ah yes | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** I did some testing: https://github.com/eslint/eslint/pull/19042#issuecomment-2500523800 | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Some observations: | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** 1. Per the "Multiple Individual Files" test made for that PR, the config caching problem introduced in v9.12.0 has been fixed in v9.14.0. | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** 2. Interestingly, on the other hand, all of our standard performance tests, which are Loading, Single File (one big file), and Multi Files (450 files matched by a glob) show notable performance improvements in v9.12.0. This was unexpected, but welcome 🙂 | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** 3. Surprisingly, the effects of Node.js compile cache, enabled in ESLint v9.13.0, aren't noticeable in test results. | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** 4. There seems to be a small but noticeable degradation in Loading and Multiple Individual Files tests in v9.15.0 | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** I thought the compile cache was only enabled when launching eslint from the CLI | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** I'm not overly confident in the validity of my testing as 2-4 were unexpected, so I'll doublecheck. | ||
* 👍 @fasttime | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Yes, doesn't the Loading test run CLI? | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** So mocha tests would not count unless they run `eslint` as a command | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** I think tests in `tests/lib/cli.js` do | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** I was mostly expecting to see the effects in the Loading test, as in the PR that enabled the Node.js compile cache: https://github.com/eslint/eslint/pull/19012#issue-2580716644 | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Anyways, I'll repeat the tests and try to figure out if I'm doing something wrong | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** I'm not sure what the reason could be. You could try to run a profiler if you haven't yet. But well, perhaps the effect of the compile cache is just not that noticeable for our setup. | ||
* 👍 @mdjermanovic | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Are you planning to open a new issue to track your results? | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** I'll post new results on the same PR, and if something doesn't seem right I'll open an issue (or issues) | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Sounds good, thanks. | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** We don't have any issues/PRs tagged for this meeting. Are there any issues/PRs you would like to discuss today? | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Nothing in particular from my side I guess. | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Nothing from my side as well. | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** So, we can talk about release | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** I could do the release tomorrow. | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Thanks! | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** It looks like we will have just `@eslint/js` and `eslint` this time. | ||
* 👍 @mdjermanovic | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** I think the same | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** I will be probably ignoring browser test errors because those are very unreliable lately, and I think it's not useful to retry running failed jobs until the browser test happens to pass. | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Yeah, we can check locally and if it works then we can consider it successful (interesting that it usually works locally, at least for me, but not in CI) | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** For me, the browser tests works locally on Windows. It fails always on MacOS. | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** But yes, seems good to run the test locally. | ||
* 👍 @mdjermanovic | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Especially if doesn't pass on CI. | ||
* 👍 @mdjermanovic | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Okay, I don't see any issues that should be included in tomorrow's release. Do you have any? | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** I don't see nothing in particular either | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Alright. Anything else we should discuss? | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Nothing in particular for today from my side | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Nothing from me either. We can call it a meeting 🙂 | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Yes 🙂 | ||
|
||
**mdjermanovic:** Thanks! 👋 | ||
|
||
**fasttime:** Thanks! And thanks for the notes @sam3k_ | ||
* 👍 @mdjermanovic |