Perf optimize cookie value validation

[blakeembrey]

Tweak encoder regex to be a negative class match (benchmark is slightly faster, but marginal, could undo if someone really disagrees) and skips validation of the value entirely when using the default encoder since it's already known valid.

[TeeAaTeeUu]

If more code is OK, an extra ~6% perf-increase can be achieved by replacing regex with a for-loop and individually checking charCode:

functiondefaultEncode(str: string): string{for(leti=0,c=0,len=str.length;i<len;i++){c=str.charCodeAt(i);// \u0000-\u0020 (<33), \u007F-\uFFFF (>126), "(34), %(37), ,(44), ;(59), \(92)if(c<33||c>126||c===34||c===37||c===44||c===59||c===92)returnencodeURIComponent(str);}returnstr;}

Runtime: node 26.4.0 (arm64-darwin)

case	before hz	after hz	Speedup
empty	25.380.759,34	25.288.506,03	1,00x
simple	12.159.813,17	13.313.107,04	1,09x
rfc cookie-octets	11.743.931,74	11.103.105,49	0,95x
encode	5.753.640,44	6.171.864,26	1,07x
undefined values	5.754.738,96	6.303.222,05	1,10x
mixed encode	3.422.381,20	3.702.327,76	1,08x
10 cookies	1.567.005,95	1.722.698,91	1,10x
100 cookies	134.028,73	141.792,50	1,06x

I think with these we are getting into the "not so relevant speedup" territory, meaning code-readability should be prioritised instead. If you read and understand regex more easily, then that is preferable than above for-loop!

[TeeAaTeeUu]

And for completion, here also the other regexes in for-loop form, gaining ~10% more (at least with the current bench, we might want to test with longer strings):

functionvalidCookieName(str: string): boolean{for(leti=0,c=0,len=str.length;i<len;i++){c=str.charCodeAt(i);// ;(59) =(61)if(c<33||c>126||c===59||c===61)returnfalse;}returntrue;}functionvalidCookieValue(str: string): boolean{for(leti=0,c=0,len=str.length;i<len;i++){c=str.charCodeAt(i);// ;(59) if(c<33||c>126||c===59)returnfalse;}returntrue;}functionvalidCookiePath(str: string): boolean{for(leti=0,c=0,len=str.length;i<len;i++){c=str.charCodeAt(i);// ;(59) <(60)if(c<32||c>126||c===59||c===60)returnfalse;}returntrue;}

And in case wanted to add a bit more readability, we can generate the charCode values:

constEXLAMATION='!'.charCodeAt(0)constDOUBLEQUOTE='"'.charCodeAt(0)constPERCENT='%'.charCodeAt(0)constCOMMA=','.charCodeAt(0)constSEMICOLON=';'.charCodeAt(0)constLESS_THAN='<'.charCodeAt(0)constEQUAL='='.charCodeAt(0)constBACKSLASH='\\'.charCodeAt(0)constTILDE='~'.charCodeAt(0)

[TeeAaTeeUu]

Walking back on my suggestion...

For-loop perf improvement only happens when the invalid / encoding-required character is found within the first ~15 characters. By the time it's 512 chars, for-loop is twice as slow.

Meaning for-loop is still faster for longer strings, if for example ; semicolon is found early within the string.