feat(utils): add NodeJS profiler #1219
Open
Conversation
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
- Add explanation that sink determines output format (DevTools TraceEvent, OpenTelemetry, etc.) - Improve documentation clarity for flexible serialization capabilities - Fix duplicate imports in profiler unit test
- Replace method implementations with vi.fn() spy functions - Add vi import from vitest - Enables better testing with call tracking and assertions
github-actions
bot
added
📖 Project documentation
|
View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit 9b75840
☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at |
@code-pushup/ci
@code-pushup/cli
@code-pushup/core
@code-pushup/create-cli
@code-pushup/models
@code-pushup/nx-plugin
@code-pushup/axe-plugin
@code-pushup/coverage-plugin
@code-pushup/eslint-plugin
@code-pushup/js-packages-plugin
@code-pushup/jsdocs-plugin
@code-pushup/lighthouse-plugin
@code-pushup/typescript-plugin
@code-pushup/utils
commit: |
Contributor
Code PushUp🤨 Code PushUp report has both improvements and regressions – compared current commit b341e30 with previous commit 270b474. 🕵️ See full comparison in Code PushUp portal 🔍 🏷️ Categories
👍 3 groups improved, 👎 2 groups regressed, 👍 7 audits improved, 👎 8 audits regressed, 20 audits changed without impacting score🗃️ Groups
29 other groups are unchanged. 🛡️ Audits
644 other audits are unchanged. |
Contributor
Code PushUp🤨 Code PushUp report has both improvements and regressions – compared current commit b341e30 with previous commit 270b474. 💼 Project
|
| 🏷️ Category | ⭐ Previous score | ⭐ Current score | 🔄 Score change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Documentation | 🔴 45 | 🟡 56 |  |
| Code coverage | 🟢 95 | 🟢 95 |  |
4 other categories are unchanged.
👍 1 group improved, 👎 1 group regressed, 👍 6 audits improved, 👎 3 audits regressed
🗃️ Groups
| 🔌 Plugin | 🗃️ Group | ⭐ Previous score | ⭐ Current score | 🔄 Score change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JSDocs coverage | Documentation coverage | 🔴 45 | 🟡 56 | |
| Code coverage | Code coverage metrics | 🟢 95 | 🟢 95 | |
13 other groups are unchanged.
🛡️ Audits
| 🔌 Plugin | 🛡️ Audit | 📏 Previous value | 📏 Current value | 🔄 Value change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JSDocs coverage | Properties coverage | 🟥 27 undocumented properties | 🟥 23 undocumented properties |  |
| JSDocs coverage | Classes coverage | 🟨 3 undocumented classes | 🟨 2 undocumented classes |  |
| JSDocs coverage | Methods coverage | 🟨 13 undocumented methods | 🟨 9 undocumented methods |  |
| JSDocs coverage | Variables coverage | 🟥 49 undocumented variables | 🟥 48 undocumented variables |  |
| JSDocs coverage | Types coverage | 🟥 66 undocumented types | 🟥 65 undocumented types |  |
| JSDocs coverage | Functions coverage | 🟥 239 undocumented functions | 🟥 239 undocumented functions |  |
| Code coverage | Branch coverage | 🟩 91.8 % | 🟩 91.6 % |  |
| Code coverage | Function coverage | 🟩 96.2 % | 🟩 96 % |  |
| Code coverage | Line coverage | 🟩 97.8 % | 🟩 97.8 % |  |
435 other audits are unchanged.
13 other projects are unchanged.
hanna-skryl
reviewed
Jan 16, 2026
BioPhoton
commented
Jan 17, 2026
Co-authored-by: Hanna Skryl <80118140+hanna-skryl@users.noreply.github.com>
BioPhoton
commented
Jan 18, 2026
hanna-skryl
reviewed
Jan 20, 2026
Comment on lines
+212
to
215
| * @throws {Error} If the sink is closed before subscription | ||
| * | ||
| */ | ||
| subscribe(): void { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The subscribe() method doesn't actually check if the sink is closed or throw an error. 🤔
Comment on lines
+244
to
+247
| /** Sink for buffering and flushing performance data | ||
| * @NOTE this is dummy code and will be replaced by PR #1210 | ||
| **/ | ||
| sink: Sink<DomainEvents, unknown> & Recoverable; |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the intention here to wait until the referenced PR merges and refactor this fragment?
Comment on lines
+467
to
+469
| it('should write to file on flush', () => { | ||
| expect(true).toBe(true); | ||
| }); |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What are you checking here? 😅
|
|
||
| // Initial state: idle | ||
| expect(profiler.isRunning()).toBe(false); | ||
| expect(profiler.activeat()).toBe(false); |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| expect(profiler.activeat()).toBe(false); | |
| expect(profiler.activate()).toBe(false); |
Comment on lines
+271
to
+277
| try { | ||
| this.#queue.forEach(item => { | ||
| this.#sink.write(item); | ||
| this.#written++; | ||
| }); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| this.#dropped += this.#queue.length; |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like #dropped can potentially overcount if write() throws partway through the queue.
| } | ||
| this.#observer?.disconnect(); | ||
| this.flush(); | ||
| this.#queue.length = 0; |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The this.#queue.length = 0 line is redundant since flush() always clears the queue in its finally block.
Suggested change
| this.#queue.length = 0; |
Comment on lines
102
to
108
| * This means any future {@link Profiler} instantiations (including child processes) will use the same enabled state. | ||
| * | ||
| * @param enabled - Whether profiling should be enabled | ||
| */ | ||
| setEnabled(enabled: boolean): void { | ||
| process.env[PROFILER_ENABLED_ENV_VAR] = `${enabled}`; | ||
| this.#enabled = enabled; | ||
| } |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The JSDoc doesn't match the implementation now that setEnabled intentionally only modifies the instance's private state.
Comment on lines
+640
to
+641
| expect(profiler.isEnabled()).toBe(false); | ||
| expect(sink.isClosed()).toBe(true); |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was about to suggest replacing toBe(true)/toBe(false) with toBeTrue()/toBeFalse() per our jest-extended rules, but then started wondering why ESLint wasn't flagging these automatically. After investigating, I found the root cause.
eslint-plugin-jest-extended only detects global expect, not imported expect. Since test files explicitly import from vitest, ESLint sees expect as an imported identifier, not a global, so the rules never match.
Vitest config factory already includes globals: true, so these imports are redundant at runtime. Removing them would enable jest-extended ESLint rules to fire correctly and surface existing violations.
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.
Related: #1197
This PR includes:
NodeJSProfilerclassNodeJSProfilerPerformanceObserverSink- add getStatus for better testing, more robust and memory friendly buffer logic