Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upGitHub is where the world builds software
Millions of developers and companies build, ship, and maintain their software on GitHub — the largest and most advanced development platform in the world.
check: return instead of throw internally #4584
Conversation
| @@ -145,33 +139,41 @@ var typeofChecks = [ | |||
| [undefined, "undefined"] | |||
| ]; | |||
|
|
|||
| var checkSubtree = function (value, pattern) { | |||
| // Return `false` if it matches. Otherwise, return an object with a `message` and a `path` field. | |||
| var testSubtree = function (value, pattern) { | |||
wh0
Jun 17, 2015
Author
This doesn't correspond to test the way checkSubtree corresponded to check.
This doesn't correspond to test the way checkSubtree corresponded to check.
|
@wh0: Before we can merge your pull request, you'll need to sign the Meteor Contributor Agreement: https://contribute.meteor.com/ |
|
|
| if (value === null) | ||
| throw new Match.Error("Expected object, got null"); | ||
| return { |
stubailo
Jun 19, 2015
Contributor
Since these if statements have become multiple lines, let's wrap the body in brackets.
Since these if statements have become multiple lines, let's wrap the body in brackets.
| _.each(requiredPatterns, function (subPattern, key) { | ||
| throw new Match.Error("Missing key '" + key + "'"); | ||
| }); | ||
| for (var keys = _.keys(requiredPatterns), i = 0, length = keys.length; i < length; i++) { |
stubailo
Jun 19, 2015
Contributor
This doesn't actually need to be a loop, right? It will return on the first iteration, so we may as well do that in the code explicitly (I know the old code had a loop, but we should fix this now that we have the chance)
This doesn't actually need to be a loop, right? It will return on the first iteration, so we may as well do that in the code explicitly (I know the old code had a loop, but we should fix this now that we have the chance)
wh0
Jun 19, 2015
Author
oh yeah, you're right. The conversion was so mechanical that I didn't even notice.
oh yeah, you're right. The conversion was so mechanical that I didn't even notice.
|
@wh0 still waiting on the for loop change! Excited to get this change in. |
|
Yea! |
|
Why closing? |
|
whoa, I accidentally deleted my branch |
|
Lol, I should merge this |
|
Yes you should. :-) |
Profiling our teams app showed that a lot of time was spent creating errors for the
checkpackage, which I assume creates a stack trace each time. For everyMatch.OptionalorMatch.OneOf, it would have to create a stack trace for the one choice that failed.Anyway, this PR modifies
check's internal implementation to use morereturninstead ofthrow, so as not to construct so many error objects. It shouldn't change the external API ofcheckorMatch.Where.This sped up one of our app's benchmarks, which called
Collection::findmany times (findinternally usescheckto validate its second parameter).