-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 137
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
Improve complex forms performance #740
Merged
lognaturel
merged 15 commits into
XLSForm:master
from
lindsay-stevens:complex-forms-performance
Dec 4, 2024
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
42bb2d6
fix: poor performance with large and complex forms with many references
lindsay-stevens 3a9d0bb
fix: poor performance with large and complex forms with many references
lindsay-stevens a84e75f
fix: avoid unnecessary dict.copy() or copy.deepcopy()
lindsay-stevens 188cb51
fix: avoid repeatedly traversing SurveyElements to find the Survey
lindsay-stevens a33a4a8
fix: reduce memory usage by switching from OrderedDict to dict
lindsay-stevens 54c7d28
fix: simplify choices validation in workbook_to_json
lindsay-stevens 24e2ecc
fix: when testing use converted xform xml instead of converting again
lindsay-stevens 2a4ba80
fix: iana subtag language lookup optimisations
lindsay-stevens 48b3969
fix: generate dynamic default setvalues instead of accumulating to list
lindsay-stevens 18c5649
fix: change constants sequences to sets for faster lookup
lindsay-stevens f1c47f5
fix: utils performance improvements
lindsay-stevens 028f26e
add: show the expected number of matches in PyxformTestCase xpath_count
lindsay-stevens ff99279
add: add missing test cases, other minor tests improvements
lindsay-stevens 61c4df1
chg: expression parsing optimisation
lindsay-stevens 6918b40
chg: performance and memory usage improvements
lindsay-stevens 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
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.
This return type! I'm particularly pained by the first string part. Could it be a boolean? In fact, could the function return only a boolean as I would expect from the function name? I don't think any of the additional info is currently used, right?
Maybe it's in anticipation of using this approach to replace
share_same_repeat_parent
? My preference would still be to keep this as simple and straightforward as possible for now. At the end of the day, this is a stylistic detail and it's isolated so fine to leave but I did want to let my displeasure be known. 😅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.
Yes right now it's just a short circuit against a descent into
share_same_repeat_parent
, and it is part of what I had in mind to replaceshare_same_repeat_parent
et al. Not sure how much of the return branches will be needed but if they aren't then I'd pare it back. Pretty sure the step count is required for the relative path stuff.