Fix #139 recursion error #141
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
We basically removed the recursive functionality of already_processed in this PR: https://github.com/MrBin99/django-vite/pull/109/files We did that because the list concatenation was getting so large for some users. But we can keep the benefits of saving the recursive tags we've already_processed (and do so without excessive bloat) by turning already_processed into a set().
Niicck
force-pushed
the
139-recursion-error
branch
from
f3ad3f4 to
a12b5b6
Compare
MrBin99
approved these changes
Sep 13, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #139
Django-vite fails to parse manifests that contain circular imports. Since this is a valid configuration, we should probably support it.
Also, while I was digging into this part of the code, I re-enabled recursive persistence of already_processed. My theory is that we'll avoid the performance issues seen in #109 by making it into set() instead of a list that constantly gets extended with duplicate tags.