search

jestjs / jest

Delightful JavaScript Testing.
https://jestjs.io
MIT License
44.3k stars 6.47k forks source link

jest 25 performance #9457

Open benmonro opened 4 years ago

benmonro commented 4 years ago

💥 Regression Report

we upgraded jest from 24 to 25 and saw our unit tests go from taking 5min 23sec in jenkins to now over 11 minutes. only a few snapshot tests broke in the upgrade, we -u'd them, but this is a severe regression imo. please help me understand how we can fix this. We clear cache in CI to ensure we always run the latest.

A clear and concise description of what the regression is. run time went from 5:23, to 11:00

Last working version

24.8.0 Worked up to version: 24.8.0 Stopped working in version: 25.1.0

To Reproduce

sorry can't share our codebase Steps to reproduce the behavior:

Expected behavior

A clear and concise description of what you expected to happen.

Link to repl or repo (highly encouraged)

Please provide either a repl.it demo or a minimal repository on GitHub.

Issues without a reproduction link are likely to stall.

Run npx envinfo --preset jest

Paste the results here:

  System:
    OS: macOS Mojave 10.14.6
    CPU: (12) x64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-8950HK CPU @ 2.90GHz
  Binaries:
    Node: 10.16.0 - ~/.nvm/versions/node/v10.16.0/bin/node
    Yarn: 1.19.0 - ~/.nvm/versions/node/v10.16.0/bin/yarn
    npm: 6.13.6 - ~/.nvm/versions/node/v10.16.0/bin/npm
SimenB commented 4 years ago

Sorry about the regression but

sorry can't share our codebase

means we can do absolutely nothing. This is the first I've heard of performance regressing, everywhere else I've heard from 10-40% improvement in performance going from 24 to 25. You need to provide some sort of reproduction, otherwise we'll have to close this issue as it's not actionable at all as it stands.

If you want to see this adressed, you'll need to spend some time putting together a reproduction case, or hope somebody else does so.

benmonro commented 4 years ago

ok i will see if i can pull our 10 slowest tests maybe, then try to run them in 24 vs 25. in the meantime, what do you recommend with regards to clearing cache before running tests in CI? do it? don't do it?

SimenB commented 4 years ago

Your configuration, especially transforms and setup files are probably relevant as well

what do you recommend with regards to clearing cache before running tests in CI

I personally think it's a good idea just to be sure there's nothing stale laying around giving false negative or positives. Does it make a huge difference to the runtime of your tests to not clear the cache?

benmonro commented 4 years ago

it appears to be quite a bit slower when run after clearing cache. thanks for the tips i'll look into it and see if i can attempt a repro

milesj commented 4 years ago

FWIW, I've also noticed that v25 is either slightly slower or right on par with v24. Have not seen anywhere near 10-40% improvement.

csvan commented 4 years ago

I saw a significant speedup over jest 24 as noted here: https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/7811#issuecomment-577057189

The above was tested on osx.

However, the exact same setup runs much, much slower on our CI which runs CentOS.

Linux specific issue? I/O related issues when writing cache files? Is it possible to turn off cache generation altogether to rule this out?

csvan commented 4 years ago

I think I found the culprit in our case, it's the --collectCoverage flag. When it is removed for both Jest 24 and 25, our tests run roughly twice as fast under 25. When it is enabled, our tests under 25 are almost 4 times as slow as the same ones under 24.

This is reproducible both on OSX and CentOS, so contrary to my previous comment the issue does not appear Linux-specific.

SimenB commented 4 years ago

Interesting! We've updated Istanbul to v3, maybe something in there has regressed. We've added support for v8 code coverage, so I might also have messed up the refactoring when doing so

benmonro commented 4 years ago

Yes! That's consistent with what I'm seeing as well. We are running with coverage in CI where it's 2x slower. And when I run locally without covg is quite fast. @SimenB is there any config option to use the older Istanbul? :)

benmonro commented 4 years ago

Echoing what @csvan said it would be nice to turn off cache generation in CI if that is in fact a culprit since we delete it prior to building anyway

SimenB commented 4 years ago

I'm unable to reproduce this - the repos I test have about the same performance with --coverage between v24 and v25. Would somebody be able to put together a repository with jest 24 and jest 25 where switching between them shows a difference?

benmonro commented 4 years ago

just ran our CI build w/ coverage disabled, I think @csvan is on to something. The tests run in 4:00 w/ coverage turned off vs 11 min w/ coverage turned on. I will try to see if i can create repro this weekend at some point.

our exinfo from the build agent:

00:03:31.992   System:
00:03:31.992     OS: Linux 3.10 CentOS Linux 7 (Core)
00:03:31.992     CPU: (8) x64 Intel Core Processor (Skylake, IBRS)
00:03:31.992   Binaries:
00:03:31.992     Node: 10.16.0 - ~/workspace/grocery-electrode/tools/nix_64/nodejs-10.16.0/bin/node
00:03:31.992     npm: 6.9.0 - ~/workspace/grocery-electrode/tools/nix_64/npm-6.9.0/node_modules/.bin/npm
00:03:31.993   npmPackages:
00:03:31.993     jest: 25.1.0 => 25.1.0
EvHaus commented 4 years ago

We're seeing a similar issue. Upgrading Jest 25 made our tests slower when using coverage (166s with Jest 24 vs. 381s with Jest 25). With Jest 25 displaying many of these errors while running the checks:

FATAL ERROR: Ineffective mark-compacts near heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory
 1: 0x10003d041 node::Abort() [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 2: 0x10003d24b node::OnFatalError(char const*, char const*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 3: 0x1001b8e25 v8::internal::V8::FatalProcessOutOfMemory(v8::internal::Isolate*, char const*, bool) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 4: 0x100586d82 v8::internal::Heap::FatalProcessOutOfMemory(char const*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 5: 0x100589855 v8::internal::Heap::CheckIneffectiveMarkCompact(unsigned long, double) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 6: 0x1005856ff v8::internal::Heap::PerformGarbageCollection(v8::internal::GarbageCollector, v8::GCCallbackFlags) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 7: 0x1005838d4 v8::internal::Heap::CollectGarbage(v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::GarbageCollectionReason, v8::GCCallbackFlags) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 8: 0x10059016c v8::internal::Heap::AllocateRawWithLigthRetry(int, v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::AllocationAlignment) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 9: 0x1005901ef v8::internal::Heap::AllocateRawWithRetryOrFail(int, v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::AllocationAlignment) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
10: 0x10055fb34 v8::internal::Factory::NewFillerObject(int, bool, v8::internal::AllocationSpace) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
11: 0x1007e7e14 v8::internal::Runtime_AllocateInNewSpace(int, v8::internal::Object**, v8::internal::Isolate*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
12: 0xb9c575dbe3d 
13: 0xb9c57ab091a 
14: 0xb9c579e7d65 
15: 0xb9c579ebaf3 

<--- Last few GCs --->

[733:0x102804000]    84639 ms: Mark-sweep 1335.2 (1449.6) -> 1325.4 (1452.1) MB, 1443.2 / 0.0 ms  (average mu = 0.135, current mu = 0.076) allocation failure scavenge might not succeed
[733:0x102804000]    85872 ms: Mark-sweep 1338.3 (1452.1) -> 1327.8 (1455.1) MB, 1159.4 / 0.0 ms  (average mu = 0.101, current mu = 0.059) allocation failure scavenge might not succeed

<--- JS stacktrace --->

Downgrading to Jest 24 makes those errors go away.

I also noticed Jest 25 handles the collectCoverageFrom differently as it seems to collect coverage from files we have explicitly disabled in that configuration. Did support for the glob syntax change there?

SimenB commented 4 years ago

Any JS traces at all? Would be interesting to see where it died.

I also noticed Jest 25 handles the collectCoverageFrom differently as it seems to collect coverage from files we have explicitly disabled in that configuration. Did support for the glob syntax change there?

We upgraded to Micromatch 4, it might've changed something. No changes to it on purpose, though. Could you open up a separate issue with a reproduction?

EvHaus commented 4 years ago

Any JS traces at all?

This was printed:

==== JS stack trace =========================================

    0: ExitFrame [pc: 0x521cca5be3d]
Security context: 0x0ebfa799e6e9 <JSObject>
    1: _clearMemoizedQueries [0xebf2a5aba99] [/Users/evhaus/Git/zenhub/client/node_modules/jest-environment-jsdom/node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/nodes/Node-impl.js:~208] [pc=0x521cd0d9a4e](this=0x0ebf5bee2aa9 <EventTargetImpl map = 0xebf7963d039>)
    2: _clearMemoizedQueries [0xebf2a5aba99] [/Users/evhaus/Git/zenhub/client/node_modules/jest-environment-...

EDIT: Actually, I'm seeing heap errors even with coverage disabled.

We upgraded to Micromatch 4, it might've changed something. No changes to it on purpose, though. Could you open up a separate issue with a reproduction?

Will do.

milesj commented 4 years ago

Chiming in again. Coverage is definitely slower, and seems to be spurious. Here's the timings for OSX.

v24
46.69
41.77
45.06

v24 coverage
78.60
75.79
80.38

v25
45.93
52.49
53.36

v25 circus
61.27
52.08

v25 coverage
310.98
227.15
153.81

Timings for CI (travis).

v24 coverage -w 4
101.634s

v25 coverage -w 4
178.306s
benmonro commented 4 years ago

@milesj what is v25 circus?

milesj commented 4 years ago

It's jests new runner, which is supposed to be faster, but it never is from what I've seen. https://www.npmjs.com/package/jest-circus

SimenB commented 4 years ago

@EvHaus Traces from JSDOM is interesting (might also be completely coincidental, of course). Could you try installing jest-environment-jsdom@24 and using that? We upgraded from 11 to 15, so something in there might have changed. Seems like a longshot, but who knows

EvHaus commented 4 years ago

@SimenB Rolling back just jest-environment-jsdom to <24.0.0 in my package.json definitely made an impact. The heap out of memory errors are gone and Jest seems to complete its runs without any issue.

SimenB commented 4 years ago

Interesting! If you have time, it'd be lovely if you could test

Or just link in jsdom and bisect. I'll do that tomorrow, but I don't really have a good reproduction yet

EvHaus commented 4 years ago

For the following tests I don't have coverage enabled.

Stack traces

These are some of the stack traces from the jest-environment-jsdom-fourteen run:

==== JS stack trace =========================================

    0: ExitFrame [pc: 0x20deef6dbe3d]
Security context: 0x36ee8219e6e9 <JSObject>
    1: _modified [0x36ee35982ec1] [/Users/evhaus/Git/zenhub/client/node_modules/jest-environment-jsdom-fourteen/node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/nodes/Node-impl.js:~189] [pc=0x20deefba6433](this=0x36eef3246e99 <EventTargetImpl map = 0x36ee99264ee9>)
    2: _insert [0x36eeb41f1e41] [/Users/evhaus/Git/zenhub/client/node_modules/jest-environment-jsdom-fourte...
    0: ExitFrame [pc: 0x2aa5df5be3d]
Security context: 0x116a8d49e6e9 <JSObject>
    1: _clearMemoizedQueries [0x116a365133d1] [/Users/evhaus/Git/zenhub/client/node_modules/jest-environment-jsdom-fourteen/node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/nodes/Node-impl.js:~208] [pc=0x2aa5dfe7dae](this=0x116a8f16cd11 <EventTargetImpl map = 0x116ae7cc9b61>)
    2: _clearMemoizedQueries [0x116a365133d1] [/Users/evhaus/Git/zenhub/client/node_modules/jest-...

FATAL ERROR: Ineffective mark-compacts near heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory
 1: 0x10003d041 node::Abort() [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 2: 0x10003d24b node::OnFatalError(char const*, char const*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 3: 0x1001b8e25 v8::internal::V8::FatalProcessOutOfMemory(v8::internal::Isolate*, char const*, bool) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 4: 0x100586d82 v8::internal::Heap::FatalProcessOutOfMemory(char const*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 5: 0x100589855 v8::internal::Heap::CheckIneffectiveMarkCompact(unsigned long, double) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 6: 0x1005856ff v8::internal::Heap::PerformGarbageCollection(v8::internal::GarbageCollector, v8::GCCallbackFlags) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 7: 0x1005838d4 v8::internal::Heap::CollectGarbage(v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::GarbageCollectionReason, v8::GCCallbackFlags) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 8: 0x10059016c v8::internal::Heap::AllocateRawWithLigthRetry(int, v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::AllocationAlignment) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 9: 0x1005901ef v8::internal::Heap::AllocateRawWithRetryOrFail(int, v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::AllocationAlignment) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
10: 0x10055fb34 v8::internal::Factory::NewFillerObject(int, bool, v8::internal::AllocationSpace) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
11: 0x1007e7e14 v8::internal::Runtime_AllocateInNewSpace(int, v8::internal::Object**, v8::internal::Isolate*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
12: 0x20deef6dbe3d 
13: 0x20deefba6433 
    0: ExitFrame [pc: 0xb8909f5be3d]
Security context: 0x09e628d9e6e9 <JSObject>
    1: childrenIterator [0x9e612e1d581] [/Users/evhaus/Git/zenhub/client/node_modules/symbol-tree/lib/SymbolTree.js:~367] [pc=0xb890a41010e](this=0x09e612e3eb01 <SymbolTree map = 0x9e6a7f56c09>,parent=0x09e685ca27d1 <EventTargetImpl map = 0x9e6061f36f1>,options=0x09e67b6026f1 <undefined>)
    2: arguments adaptor frame: 1->2
    3: _detach [0x9e65c4ae341] [/U...

FATAL ERROR: Ineffective mark-compacts near heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory
 1: 0x10003d041 node::Abort() [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 2: 0x10003d24b node::OnFatalError(char const*, char const*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 3: 0x1001b8e25 v8::internal::V8::FatalProcessOutOfMemory(v8::internal::Isolate*, char const*, bool) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 4: 0x100586d82 v8::internal::Heap::FatalProcessOutOfMemory(char const*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 5: 0x100589855 v8::internal::Heap::CheckIneffectiveMarkCompact(unsigned long, double) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 6: 0x1005856ff v8::internal::Heap::PerformGarbageCollection(v8::internal::GarbageCollector, v8::GCCallbackFlags) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 7: 0x1005838d4 v8::internal::Heap::CollectGarbage(v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::GarbageCollectionReason, v8::GCCallbackFlags) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 8: 0x10059016c v8::internal::Heap::AllocateRawWithLigthRetry(int, v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::AllocationAlignment) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 9: 0x1005901ef v8::internal::Heap::AllocateRawWithRetryOrFail(int, v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::AllocationAlignment) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
10: 0x10055fb34 v8::internal::Factory::NewFillerObject(int, bool, v8::internal::AllocationSpace) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
11: 0x1007e7e14 v8::internal::Runtime_AllocateInNewSpace(int, v8::internal::Object**, v8::internal::Isolate*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
12: 0x2aa5df5be3d 
    0: ExitFrame [pc: 0x180d6e95be3d]
Security context: 0x02052079e6e9 <JSObject>
    1: _modified [0x205b86c1861] [/Users/evhaus/Git/zenhub/client/node_modules/jest-environment-jsdom-fourteen/node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/nodes/Node-impl.js:~189] [pc=0x180d6ede24fa](this=0x0205c8284411 <EventTargetImpl map = 0x205c1ea9769>)
    2: _attrModified [0x205b86ba771] [/Users/evhaus/Git/zenhub/client/node_modules/jest-environment-jsdom-fou...

FATAL ERROR: Ineffective mark-compacts near heap limit Allocation failed - JavaScript heap out of memory
 1: 0x10003d041 node::Abort() [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 2: 0x10003d24b node::OnFatalError(char const*, char const*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 3: 0x1001b8e25 v8::internal::V8::FatalProcessOutOfMemory(v8::internal::Isolate*, char const*, bool) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 4: 0x100586d82 v8::internal::Heap::FatalProcessOutOfMemory(char const*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 5: 0x100589855 v8::internal::Heap::CheckIneffectiveMarkCompact(unsigned long, double) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 6: 0x1005856ff v8::internal::Heap::PerformGarbageCollection(v8::internal::GarbageCollector, v8::GCCallbackFlags) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 7: 0x1005838d4 v8::internal::Heap::CollectGarbage(v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::GarbageCollectionReason, v8::GCCallbackFlags) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 8: 0x10059016c v8::internal::Heap::AllocateRawWithLigthRetry(int, v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::AllocationAlignment) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
 9: 0x1005901ef v8::internal::Heap::AllocateRawWithRetryOrFail(int, v8::internal::AllocationSpace, v8::internal::AllocationAlignment) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
10: 0x10055fb34 v8::internal::Factory::NewFillerObject(int, bool, v8::internal::AllocationSpace) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
11: 0x1007e7e14 v8::internal::Runtime_AllocateInNewSpace(int, v8::internal::Object**, v8::internal::Isolate*) [/Users/evhaus/.nvm/versions/node/v10.17.0/bin/node]
12: 0xb8909f5be3d

Hope this helps

rosasynstylae commented 4 years ago

I don't know if this will help, but my organization had a massive slow down from Jest 24 to Jest 25 (18 minutes to 28 minutes) that went away after turning off coverage collection (down to 10 minutes).

benmonro commented 4 years ago

@rosasynstylae out of curiosity, does your code have a lot of snapshot tests?

rosasynstylae commented 4 years ago

@benmonro It does, yes.

benmonro commented 4 years ago

So does ours! @SimenB do you think lots of snapshots in a repo could cause this?

joelpalmer commented 4 years ago

We are having the performance issues with no snapshots. We are collecting coverage though. Significant slowdown from 24 -> 25. 2 different projects. It varies but the slowdown is significant and consistent.

I can run the tests over and over with no changes and the tests are 10 times slower on average then they were with 24.

I switch back to 24 and the runs are back to the speed we were used to.

I can provide more info if needed. I wanted to make sure to mention our 2 projects with no snapshot tests.

milesj commented 4 years ago

From all the comments here, it definitely sounds like coverage is the problem, and probably a regression in istanbul?

EvHaus commented 4 years ago

From all the comments here, it definitely sounds like coverage is the problem, and probably a regression in istanbul?

I wouldn't be so fast to point the finger at istanbul. In my case, even with coverage disabled, I'm seeing significant performance and stability issues in Jest 25. See https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/9457#issuecomment-579423330

It's possible there are two separate issues:

1) Issues with jest-environment-jsdom-fourteen, and 2) Issues with istanbul coverage

csvan commented 4 years ago

I downgraded micromatch to ^3.0.0 and saw a massive speedup using --coverage, more or less back to the performance we saw under Jest 24. Can anybody reproduce?

UPDATE: However, now running without --coverage is also back to Jest 24 levels of performance - twice as slow :-/

SimenB commented 4 years ago

@EvHaus thanks for checking, very interesting! I'm still unable to reproduce this, unfortunately. So a reproduction would still be awesome, that way I can try to debug this.

I downgraded micromatch to ^3.0.0 and saw a massive speedup using --coverage, more or less back to the performance we saw under Jest 24. Can anybody reproduce?

UPDATE: However, now running without --coverage is also back to Jest 24 levels of performance - twice as slow :-/

What in the world... As far as I can see nothing in istanbul depends on micromatch, so why it should impact coverage is beyond me 🙁

jeysal commented 4 years ago

The whole micromatch performance thing is getting a bit absurd, with coverage v3 is faster than v4, without v4 is faster than v3? 😅

csvan commented 4 years ago

@SimenB yep, ran it through our CI as well just to confirm. Changing nothing apart from adding

  "resolutions": {
    "micromatch": "^3.0.0"
  }

to our package.json shaved a solid 6 minutes off the run when using --coverage, bringing it roughly back to what we saw under Jest 24.

csvan commented 4 years ago

As far as I can see nothing in istanbul depends on micromatch

Found this comment in another thread which may be related to this:

https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/9464#issuecomment-579733243

SimenB commented 4 years ago

Just confirmed nothing in istanbul pulls in micromatch (they use minimatch in the babel plugin).

It might be something about exclusions not working properly, definitely. We use it to check what we should instrument: https://github.com/facebook/jest/blob/28f6da44cc58d41438bddfa9fcd741fd01b02ded/packages/jest-transform/src/shouldInstrument.ts. Could you perhaps stick some logging in there and see if we return true anywhere with micromatch@4 that we don't for micromatch@3?

Definitely feels like 2 separate issues though, one about jsdom and one about coverage

benmonro commented 4 years ago

I can confirm it is back to normal speed for us in CI when we resolve micromatch@3 as well.

Ancient123 commented 4 years ago

Jest + typescript + react codebase here. Seeing this issue and using npm-force-resolutions to force micromatch ^3.0.0 seemed to fix the crazy slowdown.

SimenB commented 4 years ago

Do you have custom test file patterns pr coverage patterns in your config?

SimenB commented 4 years ago

@EvHaus I'm super interested in if you see a difference by downgrading Micromatch as well, seeing as you saw a big difference with jsdom versions

Ancient123 commented 4 years ago

If this is what you mean, then yes.

  collectCoverage: true,
  collectCoverageFrom: [
    'src/**/*.ts',
    'src/**/*.tsx',
    'src/**/*.js',
    'src/**/*.jsx',
    '!src/themes/**',
    '!src/**/Styled*.tsx',
    '!src/**/Styled*.ts',
    '!src/**/*Actions.ts',
    '!src/mainStore.ts',
    '!src/App.tsx',
    '!src/AppView.tsx',
    '!src/AppError.tsx',
    '!src/StyledAppComponents.tsx',
    '!src/index.tsx',
    'src/utility/redux/*.ts',
    '!src/testingUtils/*',
    '!src/**/index.ts',
    '!docs/**/**',
  ],
benmonro commented 4 years ago

we also have that and ours looks quite similar in length/values

SimenB commented 4 years ago

@Ancient123 yeah, exactly. Seems related to the Micromatch regression for negated patterns. Thanks!

jonschlinkert commented 4 years ago

Seems related to the Micromatch regression for negated patterns. Thanks!

Noted, I'll look into it ASAP.

The whole micromatch performance thing is getting a bit absurd

Sorry about the performance degradation. Generating regular expressions for globbing is a lot harder to do than it looks. Especially when it needs to handle negation and be cross-platform. I'm looking into this now.

SimenB commented 4 years ago

@jonschlinkert it was not meant accusatory at all, the work you're putting into Micromatch and related libraries are extremely appreciated! :heart:

benmonro commented 4 years ago

yes! what @SimenB said. nothing but ❤️

EvHaus commented 4 years ago

@EvHaus I'm super interested in if you see a difference by downgrading Micromatch as well, seeing as you saw a big difference with jsdom versions

In my package.json i set:

"resolutions": {
    "micromatch": "^3.0.0"
}

Re-ran npm install, and then manually deleted node_modules/jest/micromatch (which was at version 4). Then re-ran my tests.

Unfortunately, I'm still seeing many "JavaScript heap out of memory" errors.

Am I doing the downgrade correctly?

SimenB commented 4 years ago

resolutions needs yarn, npm hasn't implemented it yet (it's on the roadmap for v7: https://blog.npmjs.org/post/186983646370/npm-cli-roadmap-summer-2019)

benmonro commented 4 years ago

@EvHaus until npm v7 comes out you can use resolutions in npm w/ this package: https://www.npmjs.com/package/npm-force-resolutions

EvHaus commented 4 years ago

Sorry for the delay. Used npm-force-resolutions (which is doing the right thing) to lock micromatch to v3. Unfortunately, it didn't make my heap errors go away.

So for me, it's still jest-environment-jsdom-fourteen@1.0.0 to blame, as mentioned here: https://github.com/facebook/jest/issues/9457#issuecomment-579423330

Resolving jsdom to thirteen is what fixes it.

SimenB commented 4 years ago

Does anyone who have experienced a performance degradation in 25 have issues that are not fixed by either using jsdom@13 or micromatch@3? Memory leak in JSDOM is being fixed (https://github.com/jsdom/jsdom/pull/2840 and various issues/PRs linked from it) and the regression in micromatch has been reported and is being worked on: https://github.com/micromatch/micromatch/issues/179.