Skip to content

Conversation

@google-labs-jules
Copy link
Contributor

@google-labs-jules google-labs-jules bot commented Jan 7, 2026

⚡ Bolt: Optimize compareTo with manual parsing

💡 What: Replaced regex-based version string parsing with a manual character loop.
🎯 Why: Version comparisons are a hot path. The previous implementation used regex and string splitting which are relatively slow and allocate memory.
📊 Impact: ~30x faster (28ns vs 852ns) in benchmarks.
🔬 Measurement: Verified with local benchmark (mitata) and existing tests pass.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 1747979225437658987 started by @srod


Summary by cubic

Optimized compareTo by replacing regex and split parsing with a manual character-by-character parser to reduce allocations and speed up version comparisons. Benchmarks show ~30x faster runtime (28ns vs 852ns) with behavior parity and passing tests.

  • Refactors
    • Switched from regex/split to a single-pass char parser with char-code checks; no intermediate allocations.
    • Preserves exact behavior (v/V prefix, whitespace validation, invalid/empty segments) and returns NaN on bad input; no API changes.

Written for commit e4d4688. Summary will update on new commits.

Replaces regex-based version string parsing in `compareTo` with a manual character-by-character parser.
This avoids allocation of intermediate strings and arrays, resulting in a significant performance improvement (from ~852ns to ~28ns per call in benchmarks).

- Replaced regex replacement for 'v' prefix with char code check
- Replaced split and regex validation with single-pass loop
- Maintained exact behavior parity including edge cases
@google-labs-jules
Copy link
Contributor Author

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.


For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Jan 7, 2026

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: e4d4688

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 7, 2026

Important

Review skipped

Bot user detected.

To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.


Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 7, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 98.46%. Comparing base (0c22e76) to head (e4d4688).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/index.ts 96.66% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main     #796      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   98.46%   -1.54%     
===========================================
  Files            1        1              
  Lines           46       65      +19     
  Branches        16       25       +9     
===========================================
+ Hits            46       64      +18     
- Misses           0        1       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 98.46% <96.66%> (-1.54%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

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