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

♻️ Refactor: the value of map is unused in uniqueRouteStack #3320

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 24, 2025

Conversation

ksw2000
Copy link
Member

@ksw2000 ksw2000 commented Feb 22, 2025

Description

The value of map m in uniqueRouteStack is unused. We can set the value type of m to struct{} instead of int to save some memory and improve code clarity and readability.

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Enhancement (improvement to existing features and functionality)
  • Documentation update (changes to documentation)
  • Performance improvement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
  • Code consistency (non-breaking change which improves code reliability and robustness)

Checklist

Before you submit your pull request, please make sure you meet these requirements:

  • Followed the inspiration of the Express.js framework for new functionalities, making them similar in usage.
  • Conducted a self-review of the code and provided comments for complex or critical parts.
  • Updated the documentation in the /docs/ directory for Fiber's documentation.
  • Added or updated unit tests to validate the effectiveness of the changes or new features.
  • Ensured that new and existing unit tests pass locally with the changes.
  • Verified that any new dependencies are essential and have been agreed upon by the maintainers/community.
  • Aimed for optimal performance with minimal allocations in the new code.
  • Provided benchmarks for the new code to analyze and improve upon.

@ksw2000 ksw2000 requested a review from a team as a code owner February 22, 2025 16:58
@ksw2000 ksw2000 requested review from gaby, sixcolors, ReneWerner87 and efectn and removed request for a team February 22, 2025 16:58
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 22, 2025

Walkthrough

The changes refactor the internal handling of unique routes within a function. The map used for tracking route uniqueness now stores empty struct values instead of integers that recorded positions. This simplifies the logic and removes unnecessary data without affecting the external behavior of the function.

Changes

File Change Summary
helpers.go Refactored uniqueRouteStack to use a map with empty struct values instead of integers. Removed the code tracking the position of routes.

Poem

I'm a rabbit with a happy code tale,
Hopping through changes without fail.
Numbers are gone, just pure empty space,
Simplified routes run at a swift pace.
With carrot bytes, I cheer this cleaner trail!
🥕🐇


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4b62d3d and 98c7696.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • helpers.go (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
  • GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, windows-latest)
  • GitHub Check: repeated
  • GitHub Check: Compare
🔇 Additional comments (1)
helpers.go (1)

193-204: Great optimization using struct{} for the map value!

The change from int to struct{} as the map value type is an excellent optimization. Since we only need to track existence and don't need the position information, using an empty struct reduces memory allocation without affecting functionality. This is a common Go idiom for implementing sets.

✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@ReneWerner87
Copy link
Member

can you share benchmarks ? is it a speed improvement

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 22, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.21%. Comparing base (5b0a96e) to head (8c6e7cf).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3320      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.22%   84.21%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         116      116              
  Lines       11560    11558       -2     
==========================================
- Hits         9736     9734       -2     
  Misses       1395     1395              
  Partials      429      429              
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 84.21% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@ksw2000
Copy link
Member Author

ksw2000 commented Feb 22, 2025

can you share benchmarks ? is it a speed improvement

The main purpose is to improve code readability because the original approach stored an integer in the map without ever reading it, which is quite unreasonable. I think this PR has negligible benefit in terms of performance.

func Benchmark_Utils_UniqueRouteStack(b *testing.B) {
	for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {

		route1 := &Route{}
		route2 := &Route{}
		route3 := &Route{}
		require.Equal(
			b,
			[]*Route{
				route1,
				route2,
				route3,
			},
			uniqueRouteStack([]*Route{
				route1,
				route1,
				route1,
				route2,
				route2,
				route2,
				route3,
				route3,
				route3,
				route1,
				route2,
				route3,
			}))
	}
}
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3
cpu: AMD EPYC 7763 64-Core Processor                
                          │  old2.txt   │           new2.txt            │
                          │   sec/op    │   sec/op     vs base          │
_Utils_UniqueRouteStack-4   1.364µ ± 1%   1.354µ ± 1%  ~ (p=0.133 n=50)

                          │  old2.txt  │            new2.txt            │
                          │    B/op    │    B/op     vs base            │
_Utils_UniqueRouteStack-4   704.0 ± 0%   704.0 ± 0%  ~ (p=1.000 n=50) ¹
¹ all samples are equal

                          │  old2.txt  │            new2.txt            │
                          │ allocs/op  │ allocs/op   vs base            │
_Utils_UniqueRouteStack-4   9.000 ± 0%   9.000 ± 0%  ~ (p=1.000 n=50) ¹
¹ all samples are equal

@ksw2000
Copy link
Member Author

ksw2000 commented Feb 22, 2025

@ReneWerner87 Benchmark for large data

This benchmark tests the performance of inserting 16 different Route, with each Route being repeated twice, resulting in a total of 32 Route pointers being inserted into the uniqueRouteStack function.

func Benchmark_Utils_UniqueRouteStack(b *testing.B) {
	routers := make([]Route, 16)
	for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
		uniqueRouteStack([]*Route{
			&routers[0],
			&routers[0],
			&routers[1],
			&routers[1],
			&routers[2],
			&routers[2],
			&routers[3],
			&routers[3],
			&routers[4],
			&routers[4],
			&routers[5],
			&routers[5],
			&routers[6],
			&routers[6],
			&routers[7],
			&routers[7],
			&routers[8],
			&routers[8],
			&routers[9],
			&routers[9],
			&routers[10],
			&routers[10],
			&routers[11],
			&routers[11],
			&routers[12],
			&routers[12],
			&routers[13],
			&routers[13],
			&routers[14],
			&routers[14],
			&routers[15],
			&routers[15],
		})
	}
}

Benchmark Results:

  1. Time per operation: The new implementation is 9% faster
  2. Memory usage: The new implementation reduces memory usage by 38.34%
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3
cpu: AMD EPYC 7763 64-Core Processor                
                          │   old.txt   │          new.txt           │
                          │   sec/op    │   sec/op     vs base       │
_Utils_UniqueRouteStack-4   1.561µ ± 1%   1.420µ ± 1%  -9.00% (n=50)

                          │   old.txt   │          new.txt           │
                          │    B/op     │    B/op     vs base        │
_Utils_UniqueRouteStack-4   1218.0 ± 0%   751.0 ± 0%  -38.34% (n=50)

                          │  old.txt   │            new.txt             │
                          │ allocs/op  │ allocs/op   vs base            │
_Utils_UniqueRouteStack-4   7.000 ± 0%   7.000 ± 0%  ~ (p=1.000 n=50) ¹
¹ all samples are equal

can you share benchmarks ? is it a speed improvement

Copy link
Member

@gaby gaby left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 LGTM

@ReneWerner87 ReneWerner87 merged commit b1e858b into gofiber:main Feb 24, 2025
14 checks passed
@ReneWerner87 ReneWerner87 added this to the v3 milestone Feb 24, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: No status
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants