Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[ci] Run CI for #3372 (Date subclassing fix) - #3419
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: ar_tama <arata.makoto@gmail.com>
… so `Date` subclasses work in workflow functions The VM's `Date` override was a plain function, so `class X extends Date` lost the subclass identity: `super()` returned a fresh plain `Date` that became `this`, dropping the subclass's methods and fields. This silently broke `Date` subclasses like `TZDate` from `@date-fns/tz`. Using `class Date extends Date_` keeps `new.target` intact, and `extends` already wires up the prototype chain and statics, so the manual `prototype` assignment and `Object.setPrototypeOf` fix-ups are no longer needed. Determinism is unchanged: zero-arg construction still returns the fixed timestamp and `Date.now()` is still overridden. Fixes#3371 Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: ar_tama <arata.makoto@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: ar_tama <arata.makoto@gmail.com>
Use a plain function that branches on `new.target` and constructs via `Reflect.construct(Date_, args, new.target)` instead of a class: subclassing still works (`new.target` is forwarded), and calling `Date()` without `new` now matches the spec — arguments are ignored and the (fixed) time string is returned, where the previous override returned a `Date` object. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: ar_tama <arata.makoto@gmail.com>
…entation Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: ar_tama <arata.makoto@gmail.com>
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 4c7cd3c The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 16 packages
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 |
📊 Workflow Benchmarkscommit Backend:
📈 STSO distribution vs main (inline / queue-hop histograms)1020 steps (inline) Cumulative STSO time: main 153980ms → this run 130414ms (Δ -23566ms, -15%) ℹ️ Metric definitions & methodologyThe collapsed STSO distribution section above buckets every step gap of the sequential-steps run (not a sampled window), split by whether the step ending the gap ran inline — in the same warm process as the step before it, so the gap is pure framework overhead — or after a queue-hop — the first step of a fresh process, which pays queue dispatch, client reinit and event-log replay. Bars overlay the two runs: Best/P75/P90/P99 deltas compare against the most recent benchmark run on Metrics — TTFS: time to first step body (in-deployment start() → first step body, deployment clocks) · STSO: step-to-step overhead (gap between consecutive step bodies) · WO: workflow overhead (whole-run time outside step bodies, in-deployment anchored) · SL: stream latency (in-deployment write → read propagation, readAt - writtenAt) · SO: stream overhead (end-to-end write+consume time beyond the modelled generation window) Scenarios — step: one trivial no-op step, no stream; no hooks, so the run stays in turbo mode (in-process fast path) · stream: one streaming step; no hooks, so the run stays in turbo mode (in-process fast path) · hook + stream: registers a hook before one step, which exits turbo mode (dispatch path) · 1020 steps: 1020 trivial sequential steps; STSO is measured between consecutive steps in the given step ranges, and WO is the whole-run overhead outside step bodies · stream latency: parallel reader/writer steps on a dedicated stream; SL is the in-deployment write->read propagation (readAt - writtenAt) · stream overhead (text): writer streams 300 variable-length text token deltas paced at 100/s for 3s (a haiku-size LLM's token throughput) while a parallel reader drains the whole stream; SO is the end-to-end write+consume time beyond the 3s generation window (overhead/backpressure) · stream overhead (structured): same workload as stream overhead (text), but each delta is an AI-SDK-style structured object ({ type: 'text-delta', id, text }) instead of a raw string, so the SO gap vs the text scenario is the added serialization cost 🔴 marks a percentile over its target (within target is left unmarked). Targets (p75/p90/p99, ms) — TTFS 200/300/600 · SL 50/60/125 · SO 250/500/1000 All metrics are measured from deployment-side timestamps only. Runs are triggered by an in-deployment route that stamps the anchor ( Cold starts are kept in the numbers on purpose — they are part of real bursty-workload latency. The workbench deployment cold-starts the |
🧪 E2E Test Results✅ All tests passed E2E Test SummarySummary
Details by Category✅ ▲ Vercel Production
✅ 💻 Local Development
✅ 📦 Local Production
✅ 🐘 Local Postgres
✅ 🪟 Windows
✅ 📋 Other
✅ vercel-multi-region
|
CI-run PR for #3372 (
fix(core): preserve new.target in the deterministic Date override), authored by @ar-tama.Third-party fork PRs don't get full CI here, so this branch points at the exact head commit of the contributor's branch (4c7cd3c — no modifications) to run the suite against it.
new.targetin the deterministicDateoverride soDatesubclasses work #3372.new.targetin the deterministicDateoverride soDatesubclasses work #3372.new.targetin the deterministicDateoverride soDatesubclasses work #3372 is updated, delete this branch and recreate it at the new head.