fix(signals): drop empty carved module reexport - #3784
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 5631a97 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 12 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
|
I traced the flagged benchmark between This narrows the difference to module loading before the measured callback. It does not rule out an effect on heap state or GC, so I have not treated the alert as a false positive. CodSpeed also reports different runtime environments for this comparison. Could a maintainer rerun the base and head benchmarks in the same environment? My attempt to rerun the workflow was rejected because it requires repository admin rights. I have kept the fix scoped to the empty re-export while that measurement is pending. |
|
I updated the branch with I compared The Signals suite also passed: 4,892 tests, with two expected failures and two skipped tests. The build no longer reports TS2306 for The fresh CodSpeed run passed against |
The Signals entrypoint reexports
carved.ts, which no longer exports anything. TypeScript reports TS2306 during the build.Remove that reexport and retain the module itself. The public exports are unchanged across all six development, production, and observe entrypoints.
Validation:
build:jssucceeds and no longer reports TS2306.The current base still reports test-type warnings addressed separately by #3781.
CodSpeed reports a 15.99% slowdown in
reconcile: deep tree, 10 of ~12k paths subscribed, with a warning that the baseline and head ran in different environments. The benchmark, its configuration, the workflow, and the lockfile are unchanged. A Vite probe confirms the same 90 source exports before and after this change; the removed module only declares an unused function during import, before the measured loop.Local wall-time measurements had 12% to 29% relative error and cannot settle that report. A fresh comparison is still needed. I tried rerunning the benchmark workflow, but GitHub rejected it because this account lacks the required repository rights. The functional CI and size checks passed.