-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 96
Bump docusaurus to v3.9 latest #945
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
Open
martindekov
wants to merge
2
commits into
harvester:main
Choose a base branch
from
martindekov:bump-9791
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 hidden or 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 was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Is it possible that we switch to swc-loader? 50 minutes build time is too long.
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.
Thanks for the input Jack, this (slower build time) was concerning for me as well, but official docs suggests this. I will try to return configuration of this in combination of experimental feature faster as simply reverting won't work. Compilation breaks so this faster feature need to be fine tuned. Will go over the code in the docosaurus 3.9 and try out some configs and let you know if it works.
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.
So with the following config:
I reduced build time to 38 minutes:
So basically between rspack and webpack, webpack is still better but not as fast as the previous runs of ~15-20 minutes. Let me know if you think we can optimize this further. Also the original webpack config as is is not working with 2.4 so that's why it had to be slightly modified to include this new features field in the config.
I'd appreciate if you know someone who can suggest even further optimizations, in my previous tests this was the closes I could get to with webpack.
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.
And with the current change as is the build takes around 2150 seconds which is around 35 minutes timed through script, so its more or less the same when building locally webpack vs simply enabling the faster feature and with the pipeline preparation probably it will stilltake ~50-60 minutes for both approaches
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.
@Yu-Jack based on the input above, do you think the slow build time is a deal breaker for adopting the newest docosaurus or we can merge this as is and open separate issue to optimize build times further?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Or you can just apply the change to this PR after you find a good method (it would be better). Besides, I think 35 minutes is a good record for right now.
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.
I noticed this problem quite early and tried combination of a lot of configurations, the current configuration yielded the best result. In the beginning when I migrated to 3.9 builds took around 1 hour and 30 minutes (locally) so getting it down (again locally) to ~30-35 minutes was success in comparison. So there might be a hidden variable which I missed or certain combination of commands and configurations but best optimization I think is effort on it's own as this change already:
So I can open separate issue and paste it here before merging this change ?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
@Yu-Jack pipeline is green and this is ready to be merged, I can open a separate issue for this discussion and further optimization? If so can you approve this and we can proceed with merging
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.
With Docusaurus Faster, it's supposed to be faster and you don't need to apply a custom jsLoader: this way Rspack uses it's built-in Rust-based JS loader (no serialization between rust<->js when bundling)
If things are slow, it's worth reporting precisely which step of the build is slow here: facebook/docusaurus#11664 (comment)
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
wow thanks for the input @slorber really appreciate it and I did not expect from you to go as far as to review this specific PR so thank you twice. I will run this and report you back