Skip to content

Conversation

@camchenry
Copy link
Member

@camchenry camchenry commented Oct 17, 2025

This one might be controversial, but inlining this simple function allows for better node type analysis.

Copy link
Member Author

camchenry commented Oct 17, 2025


How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Add either label to this PR to merge it via the merge queue:

  • 0-merge - adds this PR to the back of the merge queue
  • hotfix - for urgent hot fixes, skip the queue and merge this PR next

You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

An organization admin has enabled the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository.

Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue.

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the A-linter Area - Linter label Oct 17, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added the C-performance Category - Solution not expected to change functional behavior, only performance label Oct 17, 2025
@camchenry camchenry force-pushed the 10-16-perf_linter_inline_is_function_node_calls_for_some_jsdoc_rules branch from 8b9306e to 267d72f Compare October 17, 2025 02:26
@camchenry camchenry force-pushed the graphite-base/14694 branch from fe620b2 to 270640c Compare October 17, 2025 02:26
@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Oct 17, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #14694 will not alter performance

Comparing 10-16-perf_linter_inline_is_function_node_calls_for_some_jsdoc_rules (9ac561c) with 10-16-perf_linter_refactor_jest_require-hook_to_use_top-level_match (5e014cb)

Summary

✅ 4 untouched
⏩ 33 skipped1

Footnotes

  1. 33 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports.

@graphite-app
Copy link
Contributor

graphite-app bot commented Oct 17, 2025

Merge activity

@camc314 camc314 self-assigned this Oct 17, 2025
…14694)

This one might be controversial, but inlining this simple function allows for better node type analysis.
@graphite-app graphite-app bot force-pushed the 10-16-perf_linter_refactor_jest_require-hook_to_use_top-level_match branch from 270640c to 5e014cb Compare October 17, 2025 10:30
@graphite-app graphite-app bot force-pushed the 10-16-perf_linter_inline_is_function_node_calls_for_some_jsdoc_rules branch from 267d72f to 9ac561c Compare October 17, 2025 10:30
Base automatically changed from 10-16-perf_linter_refactor_jest_require-hook_to_use_top-level_match to main October 17, 2025 10:40
@graphite-app graphite-app bot merged commit 9ac561c into main Oct 17, 2025
22 checks passed
@graphite-app graphite-app bot deleted the 10-16-perf_linter_inline_is_function_node_calls_for_some_jsdoc_rules branch October 17, 2025 10:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

A-linter Area - Linter C-performance Category - Solution not expected to change functional behavior, only performance

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants