Replies: 3 comments 2 replies
-
It looks like this code was introduced in #11529 by @sokra. Could you comment on the expected behaviour of this change? Specifically, I'm wondering if it is really necessary that the existing chunk be found in every single ancestor path of every selected chunk? That seems very restrictive (but maybe it is indeed necessary, I don't know). I have a change that ensures that the existing chunk is just an ancestor of every selected chunk. This assumes that all parent chunks must be loaded before the child chunk. However, I'm not confident that's always true... Maybe this needs to be refined to do a separate check for each distinct entry point, if a selected chunk has multiple entry points as ancestors? Would appreciate some guidance here. Thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This is just my guess: The purpose of splitting a new chunk is to de-duplicate the same chunk of code. But for every chunk in This part is my guessing: To do so we have to make sure that On the other hand, given that a chunk can be in many To conclude,
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
All of this hinges on the question about the meaning of the parent-child relationship in chunk groups. Is it true that all parent chunk groups must be loaded before the child chunk group is loaded? Or is it possible that only parent chunk group can be loaded before the child chunk group? I have a feeling it's the actually the latter and my original assumption was wrong. I've never seen this written down anymore, but thinking about it more, it does make some sense. In that case, my idea doesn't work at all. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello,
When defining a cache group where the
name
refers to an existing chunk, there is a validation check done to ensure that the existing chunk is a parent of all selected chunks being considered in the cache group.The code is here but I'll paste the interesting section for reference:
If it finds that the existing chunk is not in the same group as a selected chunk, it then looks at all of the parent groups and it will only succeed if every one of those parent groups contains the existing chunks.
Is this intentional? It seems quite a high bar to say that a chunk must belong to every single parent group. Isn't belonging to one parent enough? If I understand, that should be enough to ensure the existing chunk gets loaded before the selected chunk.
I'm wondering if that
continue
should actually be abreak
instead?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions