Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Leverage scheduler.yield in splitTask when available #66001

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Oct 16, 2024
Merged

Leverage scheduler.yield in splitTask when available #66001

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
8538799
Leverage scheduler.yield in splitTask when available
westonruter Oct 9, 2024
70077b8
Eliminate extra Promise when using scheduler.yield()
westonruter Oct 10, 2024
d5c51a6
Avoid needlessly re-checking whether scheduler.yield() is defined
westonruter Oct 10, 2024
2516cd4
Remove needless function wrapper
westonruter Oct 10, 2024
a0933f4
Ensure that scheduler is context object to yield function
westonruter Oct 10, 2024
ee36a34
Remove needless async
westonruter Oct 10, 2024
0abf7be
Reduce verbosity of scheduler.yield() existence check
westonruter Oct 10, 2024
be4ceff
Fix return type for scheduler.yield()
westonruter Oct 10, 2024
3d40b9f
Define scheduler and scheduler.yield as optional
westonruter Oct 10, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 13 additions & 3 deletions packages/interactivity/src/utils.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -49,9 +49,19 @@ const afterNextFrame = ( callback: () => void ) => {
* @return Promise
*/
export const splitTask = () => {
return new Promise( ( resolve ) => {
// TODO: Use scheduler.yield() when available.
setTimeout( resolve, 0 );
return new Promise( async ( resolve ) => {
if (
'scheduler' in window &&
typeof window.scheduler === 'object' &&
null !== window.scheduler &&
'yield' in window.scheduler &&
typeof window.scheduler.yield === 'function'
) {
await window.scheduler.yield();
resolve( undefined );
} else {
setTimeout( resolve, 0 );
}
} );
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is more readable IMO and avoids an async function in the promise body:

export const splitTask = () => {
	if (
		'scheduler' in window &&
		typeof window.scheduler === 'object' &&
		null !== window.scheduler &&
		'yield' in window.scheduler &&
		typeof window.scheduler.yield === 'function'
	) {
		return window.scheduler.yield();
	}
	
	return new Promise( ( resolve ) => {
		setTimeout( resolve, 0 );
	} );
}

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, perfect. I spaced on this. I got the same feedback from @LeszekSwirski.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've applied that in 70077b8 and then further improved it in d5c51a6 by only doing the check for scheduler.yield() once.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And improved yet further in 2516cd4 by removing the wrapper function around scheduler.yield(). So when scheduler.yield() is available, splitTask is just a reference to that function.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Humm. Actually this results in an error for some reason:

image

I guess it's because yield here doesn't have scheduler as its context object.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed in a0933f4 via bind().

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's probably zero difference in the end between:

window.scheduler.yield.bind( window.scheduler )

And:

() => {
    return window.scheduler.yield();
}

Since in both cases a new function is involved. The former seems to be syntactic sugar for the latter.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But why use bind over the latter? I find the latter more intuitive to understand. Also, I'm not familiar enough with bind to be confident so that is the same. Since you also say "probably", I'd suggest we go with the latter.

We have to use a function anyway for the fallback of returning a promise, so we might as well wrap the entire code in a function.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"bind" is very very slightly preferable for the JS engine, since it can represent the result as a "bound function" that forwards directly to the function it binds already while resolving the call, and doesn't need to parse it, compile it, interpret bytecode, etc.

};

Expand Down
Loading