-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
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
Pagination fixes #127
Open
cmurphy
wants to merge
3
commits into
rancher:master
Choose a base branch
from
cmurphy:pagination-fixes
base: master
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and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Pagination fixes #127
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Observation: The behavior is slightly different than before because here we're returning the same list (with the same storage behind) whereas before we were returning a new list (different storage).
This doesn't seem to be an issue in this case, and we're doing the same in other places (eg: FilterByProjectsAndNamespaces)
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.
Before I think we had a difference in return vs input type, so that wasn't really possible there. Ordinarily I would fix a small inconsistency like this to avoid difficult-to-locate bugs (like someone changing the original list in a go-routine and not realizing that it affected other values down-the-line), but I think there's a performance impact here to consider - copying the items to another list would have a non-zero performance impact. I would also expect the "no filters" case to be the default for the time being, so I'd like to keep this as-is and avoid a costly copy operation.
WDYT?
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 okay as is. I think consistency would be better from my POV. The costly copy was already there, so adding it back wouldn't make rancher perform worse than it already is. We could benchmark it and see how much optimizing this improves the performance in the grand scheme of things but I'd rather do that as a separate issue and as a need basis.
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.
Without benchmark, it's usually difficult to know if an optimization improves or not. For example, the compiler could already be optimizing this part of the code. It's hard to tell without benchmarks.