Replies: 2 comments
-
Hey @hehaijin 👋 These are great observations! It is absolutely on our radar to fix. To be honest, the devtools were in pretty bad shape for a period of time and had a LOT of complaints about it simply not working. We wanted to get some of the glaring issues out of the way in regards to how the message passing works in the devtools to try and alleviate some of the major problems. So far these seem to have helped reduce a lot of the noise in that regard. That being said, I think we are at a point where we can comfortably move onto other things. You are absolutely right on the fixes listed. Here are some thoughts on each of those points:
You're absolutely right! We actually do have something called apollo-client-devtools/src/extension/tab/hook.ts Lines 274 to 283 in 6df9b7d Now that we've done a lot of rework on the message passing aspect, I'd like to explore reintroducing this client hook and see if this eliminates the need for polling. I'm really hoping so 🤞.
I agree! I want to explore reintroducing that If all else fails, I do like the idea of adding a user customizable frequency. Ideally we can avoid this, so this is my last resort if all else fails. Thanks so much for opening the discussion! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks @jerelmiller for the detailed response. And very glad that you guys are working on the issue. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I work on a relatively large project, the schema size for IntrospectionQuery is > 10MB. The Apollo extension has always feels slow, and when using it would slow down whole computer. I am a fan of the interface but some dev in our team would avoid using it
because of the performance issue.
Sometime ago the extension started crashing so I looked into the code. I just created a pull request to fix the crash. But the performance issue is still there after the memory leak is fixed.
When debugging and looking through the code I noticed that client data, queries, mutations, cache are copied from main page to extension every 0.5s. So imagine that a big size of data is transferred from main page to extension every second even if nothing is happening. And this seems the main cause for the performance hit. when lowering this frequency, memory consumption and page responsiveness is significantly improved.
Wondering if the issue is on the team's radar and have plan to fix?
Any thoughts?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions