Benchmark: WebComponent rendering

HTML Preparation code:

<template id="component">
    <div id="header">
        <h3 id="title">{{ title }}</h3>
        <h4 id="sub-title">Written by life</h4>
    </div>

    <div id="body">
        <slot></slot>
      	<button id="button">click me</button>
    </div>
</template>

<template id="content">
    <p>
        Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit.
        Amet aperiam corporis culpa deserunt dicta distinctio iste
        laboriosam laudantium modi, molestiae molestias necessitatibus
        neque nihil nisi omnis praesentium quam saepe totam ut velit.
        Adipisci architecto atque dignissimos doloremque dolores ex
        impedit in inventore nemo nulla repudiandae sequi veritatis
        voluptas voluptate, voluptatibus?
    </p>
</template>

<div id="wrapper" hidden></div>

Script Preparation code:

const fillTitle = shadow => {
    shadow.getElementById('title').textContent = 'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet';
};

const attachEvents = shadow => {
    const button = shadow.getElementById('button');
    button.addEventListener('mousedown', () => {});
    button.addEventListener('mouseup', () => {});
    button.addEventListener('click', () => {});
    button.addEventListener('dragstart', () => {});
    button.addEventListener('dragend', () => {});
    button.addEventListener('dragcancel', () => {});
    button.addEventListener('dragmove', () => {});
    button.addEventListener('custom', () => {});
};

const renderWithHTML = shadow => {
    shadow.innerHTML = document.getElementById('component').innerHTML;
};
const renderWithClone = shadow => {
    shadow.appendChild(document.getElementById('component').content.cloneNode(true));
};

const wrapper = document.getElementById('wrapper');
const content = document.getElementById('content').innerHTML;

const examplesHTML = `<my-component-a>${ content }</my-component-a>`.repeat(5000);
const examplesClone = `<my-component-b>${ content }</my-component-b>`.repeat(5000);

class MyComponent extends HTMLElement {
    render() {};

    constructor() {
        super();
        const shadow = this.attachShadow({
            mode: 'open'
        });
        this.render(shadow);

        fillTitle(shadow);
        attachEvents(shadow);
    }
}

class MyComponentA extends MyComponent {
    render(shadow) {
      return renderWithHTML(shadow);
    };
}
class MyComponentB extends MyComponent {
    render(shadow) {
      return renderWithClone(shadow);
    };
}

window.customElements.get('my-component-a') || customElements.define('my-component-a', MyComponentA);
window.customElements.get('my-component-b') || customElements.define('my-component-b', MyComponentB);

window.renderTestHTMLString = () => wrapper.innerHTML = examplesHTML;
window.renderTestCloneNode = () => wrapper.innerHTML = examplesClone;

Tests:

HTML string
renderTestHTMLString();
Clone node
renderTestCloneNode();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
HTML string
Clone node

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of rendering two types of HTML content: an HTML string and a cloned node. The tests are designed to evaluate the efficiency of rendering WebComponents with custom elements.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **`renderTestHTMLString()`**: This test renders the same HTML string (`examplesHTML`) repeatedly, using `window.renderTestHTMLString()`. The purpose is to measure the performance of rendering an HTML string as a single unit.
2. **`renderTestCloneNode()`**: This test clones the `content` node from the template, and then appends it to the wrapper element (`wrapper`). The goal is to measure the performance of cloning and appending nodes.

**Pros and Cons**

**`renderTestHTMLString()`**

Pros:

* Simpler implementation
* Less overhead in terms of DOM manipulation

Cons:

* May not accurately reflect real-world usage, where HTML content is often rendered as a part of a larger context
* Does not account for the cost of rendering multiple instances of the same content

**`renderTestCloneNode()`**

Pros:

* More representative of real-world usage, where HTML content is often cloned and appended to different contexts
* Accounts for the cost of cloning and appending nodes

Cons:

* More complex implementation due to DOM manipulation
* May introduce additional overhead in terms of node creation and garbage collection

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark uses a WebComponent framework with custom elements, which adds complexity to the test. Additionally, the tests use Chrome 128 as the browser, which may not be representative of other browsers or versions.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the `customElements` API to define and register custom elements. The `MyComponent`, `MyComponentA`, and `MyComponentB` classes are used to create instances of these custom elements. The `shadow` element is used to render the components in a separate context, which helps to isolate the rendering performance.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6+ syntax, including classes, template literals, and arrow functions. This may make it less accessible to developers familiar with older JavaScript versions or other programming languages.

In summary, the benchmark is designed to evaluate the performance of rendering WebComponents with custom elements in a controlled environment. The two tests measure different aspects of rendering performance: HTML string rendering and cloning and appending nodes. Understanding the pros and cons of each approach can help developers optimize their code for better performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
HTML string	5.2 Ops/sec
Clone node	10.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

WebComponent rendering (version: 7)

Comparing performance of: HTML string vs Clone node

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

HTML string

Clone node

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):