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

[compiler] First cut at dep inference #31386

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

jbrown215
Copy link
Contributor

@jbrown215 jbrown215 commented Oct 30, 2024

This is for researching/prototyping, not a feature we are releasing imminently.

Putting up an early version of inferring effect dependencies to get feedback on the approach. We do not plan to ship this as-is, and may not start by going after direct useEffect calls. Until we make that decision, the heuristic I use to detect when to insert effect deps will suffice for testing.

The approach is simple: when we see a useEffect call with no dep array we insert the deps inferred for the lambda passed in. If the first argument is not a lambda then we do not do anything.

This diff is the easy part. I think the harder part will be ensuring that we can infer the deps even when we have to bail out of memoization. We have no other features that must run regardless of rules of react violations. Does anyone foresee any issues using the compiler passes to infer reactive deps when there may be violations?

I have a few questions:

  1. Will there ever be more than one instruction in a block containing a useEffect? if no, I can get rid of theaddedInstrs variable that I use to make sure I insert the effect deps array temp creation at the right spot.
  2. Are there any cases for resolving the first argument beyond just looking at the lvalue's identifier id that I'll need to take into account? e.g., do I need to recursively resolve certain bindings?

Copy link

vercel bot commented Oct 30, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
react-compiler-playground ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Oct 30, 2024 3:21am

@josephsavona
Copy link
Contributor

Will there ever be more than one instruction in a block containing a useEffect

Ahh I think what you might be observing is that we create scopes for hook calls, but then flatten them away. And so either you’re looking at the pre-flattened state or you’re looking at a later pass after we flatten to a labeled block. We want to get rid of the labeled block and truly flatten it as if there had never been a scope, though. So I would definitely code as if there could be other instructions in the block w the effect.

@josephsavona
Copy link
Contributor

Are there any cases for resolving the first argument beyond just looking at the lvalue's identifier id

No, that should only happen if there wasn’t an inline function expression.

@jbrown215 jbrown215 changed the title [compiler] First cut at inferring effect dependencies [compiler] First cut at dep inference Oct 30, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@josephsavona josephsavona left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Exciting! A bunch of smaller feedback, we should discuss the strategy (given the need for guaranteed compilation) in our compiler design sync

Comment on lines +21 to +22
let newInstructions = [...block.instructions];
let addedInstrs = 0;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

let's do the pattern used elsewhere where we only allocate a new array if there's actually something to change. most blocks won't have effects.

Comment on lines +34 to +35
value.args[0].kind === 'Identifier' &&
value.args.length === 1
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this is TypeScript's unsoundness peeking through (ie it assumes array indexing is non-nullable) - these checks need to be reordered, the first could fail if there are no args

Comment on lines +11 to +15
useEffect(() => {
console.log(foo);
console.log(bar?.baz);
console.log(bar.qux);
});
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can you add a reference to a global, and a local variable with a non-reactive value? they should be part of the function deps but not added as effect deps

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants