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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Replace askama with rinja #127931

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 23, 2024
Merged

Replace askama with rinja #127931

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 23, 2024

Conversation

GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Another askama maintainer and myself forked it and named the fork rinja. The whole difference is explained in this blog post (not publicly released yet, waiting for docs.rs to deploy the new version using it before). But in short, rinja got a lot of improvements and compiles faster, so I think it's definitely worth it to use it in rustdoc as well.

r? @notriddle

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 18, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 18, 2024

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

Reworded the document. Lot of strange things in there.

@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

Kobzol commented Jul 18, 2024

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 18, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 18, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#127931 - GuillaumeGomez:switch-to-rinja, r=<try>
b533189 
Replace askama with rinja

Another askama maintainer and myself forked it and named the fork rinja. The whole difference is explained in this [blog post](https://blog.guillaume-gomez.fr/articles/2024-07-16+docs.rs+switching+jinja+template+framework+from+tera+to+rinja) (not publicly released yet, waiting for docs.rs to deploy the new version using it before). But in short, rinja got a lot of improvements and compiles faster, so I think it's definitely worth it to use it in rustdoc as well.

r? `@notriddle`
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 18, 2024

⌛ Trying commit 5d87279 with merge b533189...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 18, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b533189 (b5331890933e9098119a469f83b8e7e4737abbd2)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (b533189): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.7% [0.7%, 0.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -2.0% [-2.0%, -2.0%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.0% [-2.0%, -2.0%] 1

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 768.843s -> 769.065s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 328.71 MiB -> 328.71 MiB (-0.00%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 18, 2024
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

@Kobzol Considering it should only impact compilation of rustdoc itself, not sure it's visible in the benches. Oh well, at least it confirmed that it didn't impact things negatively. :)

@Kobzol
Copy link
Contributor

Kobzol commented Jul 19, 2024

Oh, I thought that this is also affecting the performance of cargo doc/rustdoc. In any case, at least we know that perf is neutral, as you said.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

Well, let's wait for @notriddle to give a look then. ;)

@notriddle
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 19, 2024

📌 Commit 5d87279 has been approved by notriddle

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 19, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 22, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #127786) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jul 22, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

I'll update the priority so I don't have to rebase too often...

@bors r+ p=1

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 23, 2024

📌 Commit 8d40b9e has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 23, 2024
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r=notriddle

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 23, 2024

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 23, 2024

📌 Commit 8d40b9e has been approved by notriddle

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 23, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 8d40b9e with merge 84c257e...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 23, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: notriddle
Pushing 84c257e to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 23, 2024
@bors bors merged commit 84c257e into rust-lang:master Jul 23, 2024
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.82.0 milestone Jul 23, 2024
@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez deleted the switch-to-rinja branch July 23, 2024 17:21
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (84c257e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.5% [0.3%, 0.7%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.2% [0.2%, 0.2%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.7%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)		 - - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 2.7% [2.7%, 2.7%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 - - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 770.312s -> 771.292s (0.13%)
Artifact size: 328.81 MiB -> 328.81 MiB (-0.00%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@notriddle notriddle notriddle left review comments

Assignees

@notriddle notriddle

Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.82.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
7 participants
@GuillaumeGomez @rustbot @rust-log-analyzer @Kobzol @rust-timer @bors @notriddle