I did a test with a browsertime HAR for 21 pages testing CNET:
Parsing the HAR 21 times took 6 seconds using string/parse. Using clonedeep takes 233 seconds. I guess the first have smarter caching? Using the pickAHar form sitespeed we parse the same HAR over and over so the current version really slow down the runs.
I did a test with a browsertime HAR for 21 pages testing CNET:
Parsing the HAR 21 times took 6 seconds using string/parse. Using clonedeep takes 233 seconds. I guess the first have smarter caching? Using the pickAHar form sitespeed we parse the same HAR over and over so the current version really slow down the runs.
See #293