-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
fix: check for duplicates in keyword validate #14585
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.
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
Draft
polvalente
wants to merge
1
commit into
elixir-lang:main
Choose a base branch
from
polvalente:pv-fix/check-duplicates-keyword-validate
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@josevalim I've put a benchmark in the PR description which I think is encouraging.
If it makes sense to move forward with this solution I'll add doctests in validate/2 and validate!/2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm re-running benchmarks because I realized I was testing 2 very close cases due to alphabetical ordering.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With the updated results it's clear that there is an impact in checking the duplicates.
I did get bitten in production by this, so perhaps we could introduce validate/3 in the worst case scenario where there's an opt-in flag for this check
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if there's a more optimal version possible by merging the functionallity of move_pairs! and find_duplicate_keys in 1.
It's going to probably be more complex, but maybe a bit more efficient?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought about adding a map of key => frequency to move pairs, initialized to the equivalent value from acc
Then at the end of move pairs, just traverse that and return the keys with count > 1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@josevalim @tcoopman I updated the benchmark with a compiled module (also attached in the PR body).
I didn't have much luck with getting results as good as the ones without the validation. In absolute time it's not much of a difference, but it's a very significative ratio