Codecov Report

Merging #886 (12c791e) into main (eed6d8b) will increase coverage by 0.15%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #886      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.90%   97.05%   +0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          20       20              
  Lines        3259     3290      +31     
  Branches      446      457      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits         3158     3193      +35     
+ Misses         79       77       -2     
+ Partials       22       20       -2     

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update eed6d8b...12c791e. Read the comment docs.

@nezhar can you have a look at resolving the conflicts here now that the performance issues with the implementation have been addressed?

Thanks @nezhar. I'm about ready to merge this (sorry for the delay), but to be extra safe I'd like to re-run the benchmarks that @Stranger6667 optimized from #853 -- can you rerun the two they left in that issue there just to be sure we don't regress on them by merging this?

FWIW, some of the work done during ref resolving is only relevant for newer drafts (after Draft 7), so maybe as a follow-up from this PR it would be nice to explore adding some conditional logic to avoid unnecessary work (e.g. the $dynamicAnchor keyword is not a part of Draft 7, so could be skipped during resolving) for older drafts. Not sure how much benefit it would yield though

@Julian also sorry for the delay 🙂. I made another rebase and run the test from the linked issue. This are my results:

$ python --version; pip freeze | grep json; python test.py
Python 3.8.10
jsonschema==4.3.3
10.12309193611145 sec

$ python --version; pip freeze | grep json; python test.py
Python 3.8.10
jsonschema @ file:///home/hnezbeda/DEV/jsonschema
10.206285238265991 sec

No worries! Will merge I think. Thanks! If you manage to figure out the remaining 2 skipped tests in draft2020 a PR would of course would be very much appreciated. So long as they still fail, my suspicion is that the implementation is still not 100% correct (even in the parts that pass), but it's definitely an improvement. Thanks again!