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

chore(deps): upgrade vite (back) to v6 #8370

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: set-strict-requires-auto
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bjoerge
Copy link
Member

@bjoerge bjoerge commented Jan 22, 2025

Description

Note: requires #8367 to be merged first.

What to review

This re-upgrades Vite to v6 after we downgraded to v5 when discovering the issue outlined in #8367

Testing

  • Verify that building auto-upgrading studios works. This branch is published on the upgrade-vite-v6 npm dist tag

Notes for release

n/a

Copy link

vercel bot commented Jan 22, 2025

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

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
page-building-studio 🛑 Canceled (Inspect) Jan 22, 2025 4:46pm
performance-studio ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Jan 22, 2025 4:46pm
test-studio ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Jan 22, 2025 4:46pm
2 Skipped Deployments
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
studio-workshop ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Jan 22, 2025 4:46pm
test-next-studio ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Jan 22, 2025 4:46pm

Copy link

socket-security bot commented Jan 22, 2025

Copy link

socket-security bot commented Jan 22, 2025

🚨 Potential security issues detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

To accept the risk, merge this PR and you will not be notified again.

Alert Package NoteCI
License Policy Violation npm/[email protected]
  • License: CC-BY-SA-4.0 - Not allowed by license policy (package/dist/compiled/glob/LICENSE, package/dist/compiled/glob/LICENSE)
⚠︎

View full report↗︎

Next steps

What is a license policy violation?

This package is not allowed per your license policy. Review the package's license to ensure compliance.

Find a package that does not violate your license policy or adjust your policy to allow this package's license.

Take a deeper look at the dependency

Take a moment to review the security alert above. Review the linked package source code to understand the potential risk. Ensure the package is not malicious before proceeding. If you're unsure how to proceed, reach out to your security team or ask the Socket team for help at support [AT] socket [DOT] dev.

Remove the package

If you happen to install a dependency that Socket reports as Known Malware you should immediately remove it and select a different dependency. For other alert types, you may may wish to investigate alternative packages or consider if there are other ways to mitigate the specific risk posed by the dependency.

Mark a package as acceptable risk

To ignore an alert, reply with a comment starting with @SocketSecurity ignore followed by a space separated list of ecosystem/package-name@version specifiers. e.g. @SocketSecurity ignore npm/[email protected] or ignore all packages with @SocketSecurity ignore-all

Copy link
Contributor

Component Testing Report Updated Jan 22, 2025 4:31 PM (UTC)

❌ Failed Tests (2) -- expand for details
File Status Duration Passed Skipped Failed
comments/CommentInput.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 1m 7s 15 0 0
formBuilder/ArrayInput.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 12s 3 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/Annotations.spec.tsx ❌ Failed (Inspect) 1m 20s 5 0 1
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/copyPaste/CopyPaste.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 52s 11 7 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/copyPaste/CopyPasteFields.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 0s 0 12 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/Decorators.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 26s 6 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/DisableFocusAndUnset.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 14s 3 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/DragAndDrop.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 27s 6 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/FocusTracking.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 1m 8s 15 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/Input.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 1m 29s 21 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/ObjectBlock.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 2m 1s 21 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/PresenceCursors.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 13s 3 9 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/Styles.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 26s 6 0 0
formBuilder/inputs/PortableText/Toolbar.spec.tsx ❌ Failed (Inspect) 2m 22s 20 0 1
formBuilder/tree-editing/TreeEditing.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 0s 0 3 0
formBuilder/tree-editing/TreeEditingNestedObjects.spec.tsx ✅ Passed (Inspect) 0s 0 3 0

Copy link
Contributor

No changes to documentation

Copy link
Contributor

⚡️ Editor Performance Report

Updated Wed, 22 Jan 2025 16:55:38 GMT

Benchmark reference
latency of sanity@latest
experiment
latency of this branch
Δ (%)
latency difference
article (title) 23.8 efps (42ms) 23.8 efps (42ms) +0ms (-/-%)
article (body) 72.5 efps (14ms) 67.1 efps (15ms) +1ms (-/-%)
article (string inside object) 25.6 efps (39ms) 25.6 efps (39ms) +0ms (-/-%)
article (string inside array) 22.7 efps (44ms) 22.7 efps (44ms) +0ms (-/-%)
recipe (name) 50.0 efps (20ms) 50.0 efps (20ms) +0ms (-/-%)
recipe (description) 55.6 efps (18ms) 55.6 efps (18ms) +0ms (-/-%)
recipe (instructions) 99.9+ efps (6ms) 99.9+ efps (6ms) +0ms (-/-%)
synthetic (title) 19.6 efps (51ms) 19.6 efps (51ms) +0ms (-/-%)
synthetic (string inside object) 20.0 efps (50ms) 20.0 efps (50ms) +0ms (-/-%)

efps — editor "frames per second". The number of updates assumed to be possible within a second.

Derived from input latency. efps = 1000 / input_latency

Detailed information

🏠 Reference result

The performance result of sanity@latest

Benchmark latency p75 p90 p99 blocking time test duration
article (title) 42ms 67ms 84ms 508ms 1209ms 11.4s
article (body) 14ms 17ms 19ms 207ms 273ms 5.9s
article (string inside object) 39ms 42ms 52ms 341ms 418ms 7.3s
article (string inside array) 44ms 48ms 53ms 317ms 400ms 7.3s
recipe (name) 20ms 22ms 24ms 40ms 0ms 7.4s
recipe (description) 18ms 20ms 21ms 50ms 0ms 4.5s
recipe (instructions) 6ms 8ms 11ms 14ms 0ms 3.1s
synthetic (title) 51ms 54ms 76ms 390ms 785ms 12.8s
synthetic (string inside object) 50ms 52ms 58ms 669ms 1328ms 8.9s

🧪 Experiment result

The performance result of this branch

Benchmark latency p75 p90 p99 blocking time test duration
article (title) 42ms 46ms 71ms 453ms 849ms 10.3s
article (body) 15ms 17ms 29ms 242ms 438ms 5.9s
article (string inside object) 39ms 45ms 57ms 255ms 375ms 7.3s
article (string inside array) 44ms 46ms 49ms 88ms 356ms 7.2s
recipe (name) 20ms 22ms 26ms 38ms 0ms 7.7s
recipe (description) 18ms 18ms 20ms 30ms 0ms 4.4s
recipe (instructions) 6ms 7ms 8ms 9ms 0ms 3.4s
synthetic (title) 51ms 53ms 54ms 305ms 791ms 12.4s
synthetic (string inside object) 50ms 52ms 61ms 316ms 639ms 7.9s

📚 Glossary

column definitions

  • benchmark — the name of the test, e.g. "article", followed by the label of the field being measured, e.g. "(title)".
  • latency — the time between when a key was pressed and when it was rendered. derived from a set of samples. the median (p50) is shown to show the most common latency.
  • p75 — the 75th percentile of the input latency in the test run. 75% of the sampled inputs in this benchmark were processed faster than this value. this provides insight into the upper range of typical performance.
  • p90 — the 90th percentile of the input latency in the test run. 90% of the sampled inputs were faster than this. this metric helps identify slower interactions that occurred less frequently during the benchmark.
  • p99 — the 99th percentile of the input latency in the test run. only 1% of sampled inputs were slower than this. this represents the worst-case scenarios encountered during the benchmark, useful for identifying potential performance outliers.
  • blocking time — the total time during which the main thread was blocked, preventing user input and UI updates. this metric helps identify performance bottlenecks that may cause the interface to feel unresponsive.
  • test duration — how long the test run took to complete.

@bjoerge bjoerge marked this pull request as ready for review January 22, 2025 16:56
@bjoerge bjoerge requested a review from a team as a code owner January 22, 2025 16:56
@bjoerge bjoerge requested review from juice49 and removed request for a team January 22, 2025 16:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant