ci: Improve size limit tree shaking handling #16267
Merged
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
By us providing an empty terser plugin we actually get weird results. We can just use the defaults here.
size-limit report 📦
|
AbhiPrasad
approved these changes
May 12, 2025
RulaKhaled
approved these changes
May 12, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
By us providing an empty terser plugin we actually get weird results (the browser variant with tree shaking was actually larger then the default one :O). We can just use the defaults here.
I also updated the GH action to use
bytes-iecinstead ofbytespackage for rendering the sizes - this is also what size-limit itself uses, so this should be better aligned now. Values may look larger now because it formats askBnow (so factors of 1000) instead ofKiB(factors of 1024).