-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
feat: use tokio::Command to capture suggestions
#224
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
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
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
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
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.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Uh 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.
Sequential command execution may contribute to performance regression.
The code creates and executes two separate
tokio::process::Commandinstances sequentially (lines 103-124 for patched content, then 126-139 for XML replacements). Each command spawns a new clang-format process, and the second execution waits for the first to complete.Given the PR objectives report a ~10s performance regression, this sequential pattern—repeated across all files—could be a significant contributor. Each file now requires:
format_reviewis enabled)Consider these alternatives:
tokio::join!ortokio::try_join!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.
In the future, we may just use formatted output and diff that with original content instead of parsing XML output and calculating the changed line numbers from the XML.
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.
@2bndy5, thank you for the detailed clarification! I understand now—the sequential execution is necessary because the two commands operate on different file states. Since you need the formatted output first, then must restore the unformatted content before obtaining XML replacements based on that original state, concurrent execution would indeed introduce a race condition.
The future plan to use a diff-based approach instead of XML parsing sounds like a cleaner solution. That would eliminate the need for two separate clang-format invocations per file.
I appreciate you explaining this architectural constraint. Since the sequential pattern is intentional and necessary given clang-format's capabilities, the performance regression likely stems from other aspects of the tokio conversion (perhaps the async overhead itself or changes in how file I/O is handled).
✏️ Learnings added
🧠 Learnings used