-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
Feature: Change size-limit action to measure something more meaningful than the core modules #6137
Comments
It might also be worth thinking about removing the running time measurements because they are so incredibly noisy in this CI environment. See #6143 (comment) which made no change to any code that size-limit can see (the www build is not used in this scenario) but is reporting >20% changes to runtime on two of the three modules. I think errors of this magnitude makes the numbers counter-productive because people may spend time investigating phantom performance regressions. |
Hi @etrepum do you think we can close this issue right now ? Or do we need to have hard limits of failing the build once it cross a threshold ? Or any other package you think we should include in the size check before closing this ? |
Yeah I think it's good enough, it would be nice if we had some guidelines around size but at least there is a bit more coverage now. |
The size-limit workflow, as currently configured, has the following deficiencies:
lexical
,@lexical/plain-text
, and@lexical/rich-text
@lexical/code
), or anything that involves a significant code transform (other than dead-code elimination of__DEV__
)See also:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: