Skip to content

chore: refactor to consolidate base64 encoding functions (alternative) #14160

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Aug 11, 2025

Conversation

Rich-Harris
Copy link
Member

#14157, but with a simpler implementation of base64_encode and base64_decode. I got rid of the omitPadding and alphabet options, I think they're unnecessary


Please don't delete this checklist! Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following:

  • It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs
  • This message body should clearly illustrate what problems it solves.
  • Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.

Tests

  • Run the tests with pnpm test and lint the project with pnpm lint and pnpm check

Changesets

  • If your PR makes a change that should be noted in one or more packages' changelogs, generate a changeset by running pnpm changeset and following the prompts. Changesets that add features should be minor and those that fix bugs should be patch. Please prefix changeset messages with feat:, fix:, or chore:.

Edits

  • Please ensure that 'Allow edits from maintainers' is checked. PRs without this option may be closed.

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Aug 9, 2025

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: f826d99

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Name Type
@sveltejs/kit Patch

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

@Rich-Harris Rich-Harris changed the title Simplify base64 chore: refactor to consolidate base64 encoding functions (alternative) Aug 9, 2025
@ottomated
Copy link
Contributor

This works, but I think we still need the Buffer check for big files (which need to be considered because base64 is used for read):
image

(charCode array is this implementation, which is a few ns slower for small inputs but much faster for large inputs)

function base64_encode(bytes) {
  const binary = new Array(bytes.length);

  for (let i = 0; i < bytes.length; i++) {
    binary[i] = String.fromCharCode(bytes[i]);
  }

  return btoa(binary.join(""));
}

@Rich-Harris
Copy link
Member Author

What tool are you using for benchmarking? Surprised the difference is so stark — locally it's more like 10x, which was still a surprise (and reason enough to use Buffer) but nothing like that screenshot.

In basically all cases that we can't use Buffer (i.e. the browser), we're dealing with small payloads. So I think it's better to avoid allocating that array

@ottomated
Copy link
Contributor

That was mitata with a ~4MB file – I think the difference grows exponentially with the file size

@Rich-Harris Rich-Harris merged commit fed6331 into main Aug 11, 2025
21 checks passed
@Rich-Harris Rich-Harris deleted the simplify-base64 branch August 11, 2025 18:02
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Aug 11, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants