refactor(hstr): Use default inline strategy

[bvanjoi]

No description provided.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 2a35c5a

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #10954 will degrade performances by 2.09%

_{Comparing bvanjoi:main (2a35c5a) with main (8cd5c58)}

Summary

⚡ 21 improvements
❌ 1 regressions
✅ 118 untouched benchmarks

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Change
❌	css/lexer/foundation_6_7_4	7.9 ms	8.1 ms	-2.09%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/antd	1.9 s	1.9 s	+2.11%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/d3	401.5 ms	392.1 ms	+2.4%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/echarts	1.6 s	1.5 s	+2.98%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/jquery	99.1 ms	95.9 ms	+3.37%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/lodash	116.7 ms	113.5 ms	+2.89%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/moment	64 ms	62 ms	+3.18%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/react	20 ms	19.4 ms	+3.01%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/terser	354.8 ms	346.1 ms	+2.52%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/three	656.9 ms	641.3 ms	+2.43%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/typescript	3.9 s	3.8 s	+2.4%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/victory	872.4 ms	850 ms	+2.64%
⚡	es/minifier/libs/vue	145.8 ms	141 ms	+3.45%
⚡	es/hygiene/typescript	436.7 ms	426.9 ms	+2.3%
⚡	es/resolver_with_hygiene/typescript	774 ms	734.2 ms	+5.42%
⚡	hygiene/typescript	21.9 s	21.4 s	+2.3%
⚡	github	41.8 ms	40.8 ms	+2.55%
⚡	github	41.1 ms	40.2 ms	+2.47%
⚡	html/parser/parser_document/css_2021_spec	73.4 ms	71.6 ms	+2.52%
⚡	html/parser/parser_document/github_com_17_05_2022	23 ms	22.3 ms	+3.26%
...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

[CPunisher]

I think we'd better check the diff of binary size

Take binding_core_node for example:
Before: 33390544 bytes
After: 33473168 bytes
~ +80KB

👍

[kdy1]

I think we need a binary size CI action

[kdy1]

@CPunisher Do you think we should merge this PR?

[CPunisher]

I think we need a binary size CI action

Yes. Actually rspack have done this. It upload the binding size to somewhere when finishing the ci in the main branch. And compare the binding size in each pr with the binding size of latest commit (in the main branch).

I plan to do this for swc, but there are two problems.

1. Where to upload the binding size data. Or we should build twice for each pr, which could be time-consuming.
2. I'm not sure if binding_core_node is a good bench case in terms of binary size.

[CPunisher]

@CPunisher Do you think we should merge this PR?

From my test on binding_core_node , I think it's acceptable.

[kdy1]

Regarding the binary size, we may need a dedicated webapp?