-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.9k
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(external_link): utilize hexo-util isExternalLink() #3847
Conversation
Emmmm, I think it is still necessary to have #3839 then. |
#3839 is duplicate of hexojs/hexo-util#124, so #3835 is necessary, otherwise it defeats the purpose of hexojs/hexo-util#119. |
@curbengh Yeah. So I need to find out what cause the difference between #3839 and hexojs/hexo-util#124. |
My guess is that there is a possibility that [email protected] is still used because it's installed by dependency as sub-dependency. |
@curbengh Currently, the only difference between #3839 and hexojs/hexo-util#124 is how it handle But according to #3839 (comment), it shouldn't cause so much difference:
Bingo! I have triggered a rebuild for #3839, and the performance drops to more or less the same with this PR now. |
c1037f0
to
ebc42f0
Compare
Rebased and ready for review. Should be merged after a newer version of hexo-util is released. |
I think I might add extra changes to this PR. It is possible to only register |
Please update thie repo's hexo-util to 1.6.0. |
Need to include 8ecb782 when updating hexo-util to 1.6.0 to pass the test. |
Should be superseded by #3888 |
What does it do?
This is a performance test of hexojs/hexo-util#124 to see if #3839 is still necessary. If newer
isExternalLink()
works, #3839 should be superseded by #3835.How to test
Screenshots
Pull request tasks