FluidFramework
FluidFramework copied to clipboard
microsoft
Removed option to disable writing GC data at root of the summary tree
Description
Writing the GC data at root of the summary was enabled via feature flags since version 0.56 - https://github.com/microsoft/FluidFramework/commit/7a62ce100db0064c67d7626bd47846a2817ffe7e. It was enabled by default in version 1.1 - https://github.com/microsoft/FluidFramework/commit/5884f8dcc65646c16c3adff6f9fc18ca2a2974b1.
This change removes the feature flag to change its value and enables it by default. It also removes passing the timestamp of GC run to various layers. The timestamp is added by the GarbageCollector in the GC data written at the root of the summary tree.
Does this introduce a breaking change?
No
⯅ @fluid-example/bundle-size-tests: +15.29 KB
| Metric Name | Baseline Size | Compare Size | Size Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| aqueduct.js | 392.45 KB | 393.64 KB | ⯅ +1.2 KB |
| connectionState.js | 680 Bytes | 680 Bytes | ■ No change |
| containerRuntime.js | 191.92 KB | 196.36 KB | ⯅ +4.44 KB |
| loader.js | 151.12 KB | 151.06 KB | ⯆ -57 Bytes |
| map.js | 42.63 KB | 47.38 KB | ⯅ +4.75 KB |
| matrix.js | 131.63 KB | 134.98 KB | ⯅ +3.35 KB |
| odspDriver.js | 150.23 KB | 150.11 KB | ⯆ -127 Bytes |
| odspPrefetchSnapshot.js | 38.39 KB | 38.35 KB | ⯆ -41 Bytes |
| sharedString.js | 152.42 KB | 154.2 KB | ⯅ +1.77 KB |
| Total Size | 1.25 MB | 1.27 MB | ⯅ +15.29 KB |
Baseline commit: 632468f19555df6c64dba5504821f059077c2afa
Generated by :no_entry_sign: dangerJS against ffa886d32ecaa3cc53cfd7dfb6a85df7f1b2b353
@agarwal-navin -- You say "No" does not introduce breaking change, but you're targeting next. Why is that?
@agarwal-navin -- You say "No" does not introduce breaking change, but you're targeting
next. Why is that?
It's not breaking because I made a forward change some time back to accommodate for this change. I am targeting next to give it one more version for older clients to catch up. I could do this in main too but there is no rush, so I am doing it in next.
Hello @agarwal-navin!
Because this pull request has the msftbot: merge-next label, I will be glad to assist with helping to merge this pull request once all check-in policies pass.
