Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #9203 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 98.31% 98.32%
========================================
Files 107 107
Lines 34510 34635 +125
Branches 4100 4113 +13
========================================
+ Hits 33929 34055 +126
Misses 410 410
+ Partials 171 170 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
noticed while working on #9203 TODO: show profiles
noticed while working on #9203 TODO: show profiles
Co-authored-by: Sam Bull <git@sambull.org>
|
Running well on production overnight 👍 |
Backport to 3.10: 💔 cherry-picking failed — conflicts found❌ Failed to cleanly apply 6e70c0a on top of patchback/backports/3.10/6e70c0ab91f383a0d28448d1506d826a9b44e53d/pr-9203 Backporting merged PR #9203 into master
🤖 @patchback |
Backport to 3.11: 💔 cherry-picking failed — conflicts found❌ Failed to cleanly apply 6e70c0a on top of patchback/backports/3.11/6e70c0ab91f383a0d28448d1506d826a9b44e53d/pr-9203 Backporting merged PR #9203 into master
🤖 @patchback |
Co-authored-by: Sam Bull <git@sambull.org> (cherry picked from commit 6e70c0a)
Co-authored-by: Sam Bull <git@sambull.org> (cherry picked from commit 6e70c0a)
What do these changes do?
Implement heapq for cookie expire times
Are there changes in behavior for the user?
no
Is it a substantial burden for the maintainers to support this?
heapq is a bit of a complex structure to maintain
Related issue number
fixes #8575
fixes #7790
benchmark script (we care about the
filter_other_domaincase for expires and that still includes the filtering time so its actually even faster): #7790 (comment)Before
filter_other_domain: 0.451234458014369
After
filter_other_domain: 0.0018771658651530743
note that profile is not exactly the same number of iterations since its using a real world use case of 60s and its hard to get it exactly the same (1644 before) / (1413 after) but its such a significant difference, its more than enough to show the performance improvement of ~96-97% less run time (adjusted ratio for the iterations):
before

after
