Skip to content
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

Fix: avoid exponential require-atomic-updates traversal (fixes #10893) #10894

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Sep 28, 2018

Conversation

not-an-aardvark
Copy link
Member

@not-an-aardvark not-an-aardvark commented Sep 26, 2018

What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)

[ ] Documentation update
[x] Bug fix (#10893)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofixing to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)

Previously, the require-atomic-updates rule would traverse over every path in the control flow graph, resulting in a runtime that was exponential in the number of edges in the graph. This commit updates the rule to use a lattice-based dataflow analysis algorithm, similar to the algorithms used by optimizing compilers.

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?

Nothing in particular

Previously, the `no-atomic-updates` rule would traverse over every path in the control flow graph, resulting in a runtime that was exponential in the number of edges in the graph. This commit updates the rule to use a lattice-based [dataflow analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data-flow_analysis) algorithm, similar to the algorithms used by optimizing compilers.
@not-an-aardvark not-an-aardvark added bug ESLint is working incorrectly rule Relates to ESLint's core rules accepted There is consensus among the team that this change meets the criteria for inclusion labels Sep 26, 2018
Copy link
Member

@platinumazure platinumazure left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, just leaving one comment but probably not a blocker.

@@ -68,7 +129,7 @@ ruleTester.run("require-atomic-updates", rule, {
errors: [VARIABLE_ERROR]
},
{
code: "let foo; async function x() { foo = foo + (bar ? baz : await amount); }",
code: "let foo; async function x() { foo = foo + (barrr ? baz : await amount); }",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure I understand the purpose of this change.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops, this was accidental --- I temporarily changed it in order to be able to grep for a single test, but then I forgot to change it back.

@not-an-aardvark not-an-aardvark changed the title Fix: avoid exponential-time no-atomic-updates traversal (fixes #10893) Fix: avoid exponential require-atomic-updates traversal (fixes #10893) Sep 28, 2018
@not-an-aardvark not-an-aardvark merged commit 9b26bdb into master Sep 28, 2018
@not-an-aardvark not-an-aardvark deleted the no-atomic-updates-dataflow-algorithm branch September 28, 2018 17:11
@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 28, 2019
@eslint-deprecated eslint-deprecated bot added the archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion label Mar 28, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
accepted There is consensus among the team that this change meets the criteria for inclusion archived due to age This issue has been archived; please open a new issue for any further discussion bug ESLint is working incorrectly rule Relates to ESLint's core rules
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants