feat: implement useStrictShallowCopy

[hrsh7th]

Description

Fixes #867

This PR improves the performance when updating the object that contains a large number of entries.

Problem

The current immer takes a long time for creating new object when the draft object has large amount of keys.

From some of the investigation, I found the cause that is getOwnPropertyDescriptors (here) .

In my computer, the ownKeys and its iteration don't take a long time but getOwnPropertyDescriptors takes time near the 10ms.

I can understand that the getOwnPropertyDescriptors is needed. Because immer should copy object's descriptors such as getter/setter/non-enumerable keys.

But some of the users doesn't need that strictness, I think.

Solution

Add the ability to opt-out of strict shallow copy implementation for performance reasons.

import { useStrictShallowCopy } from 'immer';

useStrictShallowCopy(false);

Result

The following results show the benefit of this patch.

// Iteration count:
//   50
//
// Base object: 
//   Array(10000)
//   	.fill(0)
//   	.map((_, i) => [i, i])
// 
// Test case:
//   for (let i = 0; i < MAX; i++) {
//   	produce(baseState, draft => {
//   		draft[5000]++
//   	})
//   }

# large-obj - mutate large object

immer (proxy) - with setUseStrictShallowCopy: 354ms
immer (proxy) - without setUseStrictShallowCopy: 79ms
immer (es5) - with setUseStrictShallowCopy: 1228ms
immer (es5) - without setUseStrictShallowCopy: 655ms

[netlify[bot]]

👷 Deploy request for quizzical-lovelace-dcbd6a pending review.

Visit the deploys page to approve it

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	f9cdf8e6b468e5b35d37bfcb7c20ecce920a6012

[mweststrate]

I didn't read the code yet, but could you include a rationale in the PR description, what are you updating and why is it faster, what does the API look like, in which cases will it break things, etc?

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 4024919453

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

We've detected an issue with your CI configuration that might affect the accuracy of this pull request's coverage report. To ensure accuracy in future PRs, please see these guidelines. A quick fix for this PR: rebase it; your next report should be accurate.

• 18 of 19 (94.74%) changed or added relevant lines in 5 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.1%) to 98.168%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
src/core/immerClass.ts	3	4	75.0%
<!--	Total:	18	19

Totals
Change from base Build 3932225358:	-0.1%
Covered Lines:	801
Relevant Lines:	813

---

💛 - Coveralls

[hrsh7th]

Thank you for your advice. I will update the PR description and try a more rational explanation. It may take some time.

[gregdingle]

@hrsh7th @mweststrate this looks like a great PR to give users (like me) meaningfully better performance with large objects (>1000 keys).

Was it closed just for lack of activity?

[mweststrate]

It was missing rationale IIRC when it was closed, but now I see it is present, so reopening :) It might take some time to process though due to my own personal circumstances. Apologies upfront!

[mweststrate]

I think it makes sense to make this behavior the new default, ship it as separate major version and make the old behavior opt-in using a flag.

[hrsh7th]

Thank you for your review.

Nice to hear that this PR is an acceptable change.

I noticed that the test is failing. I will fix it.

[hrsh7th]

Could you approve the GitHub Actions?

In my environment, this branch is passed the all tests... I want to re-try GitHub Actions.

[mweststrate]

done!

[hrsh7th]

Thank you! It seems to pass the tests. I'll do the necessary work, such as fixes that change the default behavior.

[hrsh7th]

I'm not confident about the documentation part, but I think the code part is ready for review.

[github-actions[bot]]

:tada: This PR is included in version 10.0.0 :tada:

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot :package::rocket: