fix: Polyfill instancing bug #220
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Resolves #219.
This was a result of the performance enhancement in #208 which stopped doing fine-grained polyfilling on a per-module basis, and instead duplicates module loads between pure native and pure polyfill modes.
The logic wasn't quite right on one of the codepaths, which has been updated based on the new principle that a top-level
<script type="module">tag will be assigned to either the native loader or the polyfill loader (and the polyfill loader will always apply when the native loader fails). This does still mean that native modules that succeed in polyfill mode will not share dependency instances with polyfilled modules, and this remains an instancing footgun, but at least it is one we can reason about.