Performance improvements with if() + else() instead of ifelse()

[IndrajeetPatil]

cf. #759 (comment)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1006 (6cb403c) into main (d80d061) will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 93.10%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1006      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.11%   91.07%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          46       46              
  Lines        2635     2644       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits         2401     2408       +7     
- Misses        234      236       +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
R/set-assert-args.R	90.47% <50.00%> (-2.39%)	⬇️
R/nested-to-tree.R	92.85% <66.66%> (-3.44%)	⬇️
R/detect-alignment-utils.R	97.18% <100.00%> (ø)
R/detect-alignment.R	97.80% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
R/expr-is.R	86.11% <100.00%> (ø)
R/relevel.R	49.29% <100.00%> (+1.46%)	⬆️
R/rules-line-breaks.R	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
R/style-guides.R	99.43% <100.00%> (ø)
R/token-create.R	96.22% <100.00%> (+0.14%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 0d8b2ce is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 28.4ms -> 28.3ms [-1.8%, +1.03%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 1.3s -> 1.3s [-1.39%, +1.02%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 3.39s -> 3.4s [-1.13%, +2.09%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[IndrajeetPatil]

Unfortunately, not as impressive as I would have expected it to be.

So I will let you decide if this is worth merging.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 0d8b2ce is merged into main:

•   :rocket:cache_applying: 27.2ms -> 27ms [-1.42%, -0.17%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 1.26s -> 1.26s [-0.68%, +0.13%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 3.33s -> 3.33s [-0.65%, +0.33%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 0d8b2ce is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 24.1ms -> 23.9ms [-1.41%, +0.21%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 1.11s -> 1.11s [-0.63%, +1.24%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 2.9s -> 2.9s [-1.45%, +1.36%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[IndrajeetPatil]

The cache_applying benchmark does seem to improve - sometimes significant, and sometimes not - but it is always in the right direction here.

[lorenzwalthert]

That benchmark is also the least of our concern because applying the cache is already 'instant'. I am ok with the changes. They certainly do not make things worse in terms of performance and readibility is not hurt too much. And the int conversions also make sense.