refactor: replace java-parser with tree-sitter#811
Draft
jtkiesel wants to merge 1 commit intojhipster:mainfrom
Draft
refactor: replace java-parser with tree-sitter#811jtkiesel wants to merge 1 commit intojhipster:mainfrom
jtkiesel wants to merge 1 commit intojhipster:mainfrom
Conversation
jtkiesel
force-pushed
the
refactor/tree-sitter
branch
3 times, most recently
from
0a8ddaf to
e3b1598
Compare
jtkiesel
force-pushed
the
refactor/tree-sitter
branch
from
e3b1598 to
e71d000
Compare
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What changed with this PR:
Major refactor to replace java-parser with tree-sitter. The tree structure of the tree-sitter Java grammar more closely resembles estree's, which makes it considerably easier to port logic from Prettier's JS printer. Because the parsed tree doesn't end up with real nodes for every single production of the JLS (it seems to use "virtual" node types in many cases), the trees are much shorter/simpler, which results in noticeable performance improvements, both in formatting speed and in memory usage (~10% faster). This results in fixing #806, and also seemingly eliminating the performance issues from the addition of an
embedfunction that was seen in #795, so ought to make that feature possible as well.Relative issues or prs:
Closes #806