fix(performance): improve omit #461
Merged
Conversation
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
gr2m
approved these changes
Nov 27, 2023
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 9.0.4 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 9.0.4 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR is improving the omit function performance by avoiding the array utility functions. It also initializes the object with proto: null to be more resilient to potential prototype pollutions. proto: null puts the object into dictionary mode which is slightly less performant. So probably the performance improvements of avoiding the array utility function is eaten by the dictionary mode. But I think the security aspect is more important.
Resolves #ISSUE_NUMBER
Before the change?
After the change?
Pull request checklist
Does this introduce a breaking change?
Please see our docs on breaking changes to help!