JSON mapping: codecs, creators, generics, arrays and null semantics by shai-almog · Pull Request #6105 · codenameone/CodenameOne

shai-almog · 2026-10-25T14:02:04Z

Both the backend's build-time JSON codecs (BackendJsonCodecs) and the client's @Mapped mappers (MappingAnnotationProcessor) now read one shared set of annotations, so a class shared by an app and its backend has one JSON contract.

New

@JsonAdapter + JsonTypeAdapter<T>: application codecs, called directly with no reflection, and validated at build time (public, concrete, no-arg constructor, T matching the field).
@JsonCreator: immutable DTOs through a constructor or a static factory; records also work.
Typed generic DTOs (Page<User> gets its own codec) and one-dimensional arrays. Shapes that stay unsupported (multi-dimensional arrays, bad adapters, folding codec names) fail the build with the field's name.
@JsonStrict refuses unknown members. @JsonProperty gains aliases and required. @JsonOmitNull; @JsonFormat(STRING/NUMBER) for dates (ISO-8601 UTC) and numbers.
Path diagnostics such as $.items[2].id: required member is missing. The depth limit is configurable through cn1.json.maxDepth.

Compatibility

A class that uses none of the new options reads and writes as before.
On the client, an explicit null clears a field only in @JsonStrict classes, on required members, and through adapters. Elsewhere it is read like an absent member, as the parser has always done.
Tests that asserted "arrays are refused" now assert that int[][] is refused.

Docs: Backend-Web.asciidoc gains "Shaping the JSON contract" and a "Coming from Jackson" migration table, and Annotation-JSON-XML-Mapping.asciidoc is updated to match.

Verification

build-engine suite: 2884 tests, 0 failures. SpotBugs reports 0 findings on build-engine, backend and core-unittests, and the cast-semantics check passes.
Three rounds of adversarial review fixed the following:
- alias diagnostics;
- ISO date validation (Feb 30, 24:30, offset range);
- the adapter null contract between client and server;
- array element range and type checks on the client;
- a client explicit-null behaviour change for unannotated classes.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

@jsoncreator

…5995) Extends both the backend's build-time JSON codecs and the client's @mapped mappers with one shared set of annotations: - @JsonAdapter / JsonTypeAdapter: application codecs, called directly, no reflection; validated at build time. - @jsoncreator: immutable DTOs built through a constructor or factory. - Typed generic DTOs (Page<User> gets its own codec) and one-dimensional arrays; shapes that stay unsupported fail the build by name. - @JsonStrict (unknown members refused), @JsonProperty aliases/required, @JsonOmitNull, @jsonformat(STRING/NUMBER) for dates and numbers. - Path diagnostics ($.items[2].id: required member is missing) and a configurable depth limit (cn1.json.maxDepth). Default behaviour is unchanged: a class that uses none of the new options reads and writes as before, including an explicit null on the client. Docs gain a "Shaping the JSON contract" section and a Jackson migration table. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

github-actions · 2026-10-25T14:40:23Z

Cloudflare Preview

URL: https://pr-6105-website-preview.codenameone.pages.dev
Branch: pr-6105-website-preview

…ned adapter example Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…s null Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

github-actions · 2026-10-25T14:46:47Z

Flutter vs Codename One

Same application, built both ways: Flutter's AOT compile of the gallery, and the identical Dart source transpiled to Java on Codename One. Lower is better for every metric, so a ratio above 1.00x means Codename One is ahead by that factor.

android

9 interleaved rounds; host load 0.27, 1.47, 1.24

Metric	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio	Winner
Installed size	78.2 MB	95.8 MB	1.22x	Codename One
Executable code	4.7 MB	20.6 MB	4.42x	Codename One
Download size (zipped)	78.2 MB	95.8 MB	1.22x	Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen	374 ms	1328 ms	3.60x	Codename One
Memory at rest	44.4 MB	77.0 MB	1.73x	Codename One

Start-up and memory at rest are judged round by round: the ratio is the median of the per-round ratios, each from two launches made back to back, and the times and sizes shown are each side's median, so the ratio need not equal their quotient. Codename One was ahead in 9 of 9 rounds on cold start to first frame on screen; 9 of 9 rounds on memory at rest.

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Workload	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio
intArithmetic	56 ms	119 ms	2.12x
longArithmetic	34 ms	36 ms	1.06x
mathTranscendental	160 ms	197 ms	1.23x
arraySequential	16 ms	21 ms	1.31x
arrayRandom	195 ms	214 ms	1.10x
objectAllocation	65 ms	25 ms	0.39x
valueEscape	6 ms	5 ms	0.83x
hashMapChurn	126 ms	197 ms	1.56x
stringBuilding	58 ms	79 ms	1.36x
recursion	42 ms	177 ms	4.21x
quicksortBench	104 ms	120 ms	1.15x
Geometric mean			1.26x

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline.

Android sizes are for the arm64-v8a slice a phone is delivered, on both sides; Flutter's release apk carries three ABIs and would otherwise count its engine about three times.
Android start-up and memory come from an x86_64 emulator with a software GPU. They compare the two runtimes on one machine; they are not phone timings, and a renderer that leans on the GPU is penalised more there.
This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

ios

9 interleaved rounds; host load 31.42, 31.25, 24.74

Metric	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio	Winner
Installed size	108.1 MB	110.5 MB	1.02x	Codename One
Executable code	17.1 MB	19.1 MB	1.11x	Codename One
Download size (zipped)	80.0 MB	81.9 MB	1.02x	Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen	--	--	--	not measured
Memory at rest	--	--	--	not measured

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Not measured: iOS compute is not measured: a device build needs signed hardware, and on the simulator Flutter runs its JIT debug engine rather than AOT code. The macOS row runs the same ParparVM and Dart AOT compilers on the same Apple silicon.

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline. Smaller than its baseline, which does not fail the gate: Executable code -7.50% -- rebaseline to tighten. To accept the move, download this platform's baseline-<platform>.json artifact and run python3 scripts/flutter-bench/flutter_baseline.py calibrate --pr 6105 --reason "<why these moved>" baseline-ios.json, then commit the overlay it writes.

iOS start-up and memory are not measured here: Flutter cannot AOT-compile for the simulator, so a simulator run would time a JIT debug build against a release build. Sizes come from release device bundles; timings need signed hardware.
This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

javascript

9 interleaved rounds; host load 2.07, 1.24, 0.53

Metric	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio	Winner
Installed size	103.9 MB	122.5 MB	1.18x	Codename One
Executable code	12.9 MB	25.2 MB	1.96x	Codename One
Download size (zipped)	76.3 MB	84.1 MB	1.10x	Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen	--	--	--	not measured
Memory at rest	--	--	--	not measured

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Workload	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio
intArithmetic	656 ms	wrong result	Flutter: wrong result
longArithmetic	5077 ms	did not run	Flutter: did not run
mathTranscendental	570 ms	did not run	Flutter: did not run
arraySequential	228 ms	82 ms	0.36x
arrayRandom	935 ms	wrong result	Flutter: wrong result
objectAllocation	38 ms	27 ms	0.71x
valueEscape	154 ms	7 ms	0.04x
hashMapChurn	994 ms	249 ms	0.25x
stringBuilding	518 ms	107 ms	0.21x
recursion	508 ms	489 ms	0.96x
quicksortBench	399 ms	wrong result	Flutter: wrong result
Geometric mean			0.29x

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline; BEHIND FLUTTER on Compute (geomean of the VM workloads) (reported, not gated: a loss to Flutter on the web is currently accepted).

the JavaScript adapter needs a Chrome DevTools driver; sizes are reported and timings are not
This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

linux

9 interleaved rounds; host load 0.23, 2.88, 2.5

Metric	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio	Winner
Installed size	111.4 MB	143.8 MB	1.29x	Codename One
Executable code	14.1 MB	16.1 MB	1.15x	Codename One
Download size (zipped)	80.9 MB	92.9 MB	1.15x	Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen	146 ms	211 ms	1.45x	Codename One
Memory at rest	85.6 MB	226.0 MB	2.63x	Codename One

Start-up and memory at rest are judged round by round: the ratio is the median of the per-round ratios, each from two launches made back to back, and the times and sizes shown are each side's median, so the ratio need not equal their quotient. Codename One was ahead in 9 of 9 rounds on cold start to first frame on screen; 9 of 9 rounds on memory at rest.

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Workload	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio
intArithmetic	89 ms	242 ms	2.72x
longArithmetic	60 ms	65 ms	1.08x
mathTranscendental	205 ms	212 ms	1.03x
arraySequential	17 ms	42 ms	2.47x
arrayRandom	263 ms	301 ms	1.14x
objectAllocation	34 ms	39 ms	1.15x
valueEscape	5 ms	13 ms	2.60x
hashMapChurn	48 ms	300 ms	6.25x
stringBuilding	32 ms	119 ms	3.72x
recursion	110 ms	241 ms	2.19x
quicksortBench	173 ms	167 ms	0.96x
Geometric mean			1.91x

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline.

This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

macos

9 interleaved rounds; host load 3.92, 13.92, 16.98

Metric	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio	Winner
Installed size	124.1 MB	139.4 MB	1.12x	Codename One
Executable code	33.0 MB	47.9 MB	1.45x	Codename One
Download size (zipped)	85.5 MB	93.3 MB	1.09x	Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen	495 ms	590 ms	1.26x	Codename One
Memory at rest	36.7 MB	53.1 MB	1.45x	Codename One

Start-up and memory at rest are judged round by round: the ratio is the median of the per-round ratios, each from two launches made back to back, and the times and sizes shown are each side's median, so the ratio need not equal their quotient. Codename One was ahead in 6 of 9 rounds on cold start to first frame on screen; 9 of 9 rounds on memory at rest.

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Workload	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio
intArithmetic	121 ms	254 ms	2.10x
longArithmetic	80 ms	76 ms	0.95x
mathTranscendental	288 ms	353 ms	1.23x
arraySequential	11 ms	47 ms	4.27x
arrayRandom	288 ms	313 ms	1.09x
objectAllocation	72 ms	28 ms	0.39x
valueEscape	6 ms	15 ms	2.50x
hashMapChurn	39 ms	195 ms	5.00x
stringBuilding	23 ms	117 ms	5.09x
recursion	135 ms	285 ms	2.11x
quicksortBench	120 ms	134 ms	1.12x
Geometric mean			1.80x

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline. Smaller than its baseline, which does not fail the gate: Executable code -6.57% -- rebaseline to tighten. To accept the move, download this platform's baseline-<platform>.json artifact and run python3 scripts/flutter-bench/flutter_baseline.py calibrate --pr 6105 --reason "<why these moved>" baseline-macos.json, then commit the overlay it writes.

This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

windows

9 interleaved rounds

Metric	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio	Winner
Installed size	107.8 MB	121.1 MB	1.12x	Codename One
Executable code	11.3 MB	14.1 MB	1.25x	Codename One
Download size (zipped)	77.8 MB	86.4 MB	1.11x	Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen	158 ms	247 ms	1.52x	Codename One
Memory at rest	58.4 MB	92.5 MB	1.58x	Codename One

Start-up and memory at rest are judged round by round: the ratio is the median of the per-round ratios, each from two launches made back to back, and the times and sizes shown are each side's median, so the ratio need not equal their quotient. Codename One was ahead in 9 of 9 rounds on cold start to first frame on screen; 9 of 9 rounds on memory at rest.

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Workload	Codename One	Flutter	Ratio
intArithmetic	90 ms	241 ms	2.68x
longArithmetic	58 ms	65 ms	1.12x
mathTranscendental	192 ms	211 ms	1.10x
arraySequential	12 ms	44 ms	3.67x
arrayRandom	276 ms	330 ms	1.20x
objectAllocation	37 ms	44 ms	1.19x
valueEscape	1 ms	13 ms	13.00x
hashMapChurn	47 ms	283 ms	6.02x
stringBuilding	29 ms	118 ms	4.07x
recursion	216 ms	238 ms	1.10x
quicksortBench	170 ms	164 ms	0.96x
Geometric mean			2.20x

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline. Smaller than its baseline, which does not fail the gate: Executable code -10.80%; Download size (zipped) -0.78% -- rebaseline to tighten. To accept the move, download this platform's baseline-<platform>.json artifact and run python3 scripts/flutter-bench/flutter_baseline.py calibrate --pr 6105 --reason "<why these moved>" baseline-windows.json, then commit the overlay it writes.

This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

Codename One wins 26 of 26 measured metrics across 6 platform(s).

github-actions · 2026-10-25T14:57:31Z

Developer Guide build artifacts are available for download from this workflow run:

Developer Guide quality checks:

AsciiDoc linter: No issues found (report)
Vale: No alerts found (report)
Paragraph capitalization: No paragraph capitalization issues (report)
LanguageTool: No grammar matches (report)
Image references: No unused images detected (report)

shai-almog · 2026-10-25T15:21:29Z

Compared 191 screenshots: 191 matched.

Native Android coverage

📊 Line coverage: 18.90% (48250/255341 lines covered) [HTML preview] (artifact android-coverage-report, jacocoAndroidReport/html/index.html)
- Other counters: instruction 17.64% (229182/1299035), branch 12.04% (16817/139675), complexity 9.67% (12910/133466), method 14.57% (9122/62628), class 25.16% (1774/7052)
- Lowest covered classes
  - kotlin.collections.kotlin.collections.ArraysKt___ArraysKt – 0.00% (0/6367 lines covered)
  - kotlin.collections.unsigned.kotlin.collections.unsigned.UArraysKt___UArraysKt – 0.00% (0/2384 lines covered)
  - org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.ClassReader – 0.00% (0/1524 lines covered)
  - org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.MethodWriter – 0.00% (0/922 lines covered)
  - kotlin.sequences.kotlin.sequences.SequencesKt___SequencesKt – 0.00% (0/736 lines covered)
  - com.google.common.cache.com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment – 0.00% (0/726 lines covered)
  - okio.okio.Buffer – 0.00% (0/687 lines covered)
  - kotlin.text.kotlin.text.StringsKt___StringsKt – 0.00% (0/625 lines covered)
  - com.codename1.androidcompat.rt.com.codename1.androidcompat.rt.TextXmlPullParser – 0.00% (0/623 lines covered)
  - com.codename1.androidcompat.androidx.constraintlayout.core.widgets.com.codename1.androidcompat.androidx.constraintlayout.core.widgets.Flow – 0.00% (0/576 lines covered)

✅ Native Android screenshot tests passed.

Native Android coverage

📊 Line coverage: 18.90% (48250/255341 lines covered) [HTML preview] (artifact android-coverage-report, jacocoAndroidReport/html/index.html)
- Other counters: instruction 17.64% (229182/1299035), branch 12.04% (16817/139675), complexity 9.67% (12910/133466), method 14.57% (9122/62628), class 25.16% (1774/7052)
- Lowest covered classes
  - kotlin.collections.kotlin.collections.ArraysKt___ArraysKt – 0.00% (0/6367 lines covered)
  - kotlin.collections.unsigned.kotlin.collections.unsigned.UArraysKt___UArraysKt – 0.00% (0/2384 lines covered)
  - org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.ClassReader – 0.00% (0/1524 lines covered)
  - org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.MethodWriter – 0.00% (0/922 lines covered)
  - kotlin.sequences.kotlin.sequences.SequencesKt___SequencesKt – 0.00% (0/736 lines covered)
  - com.google.common.cache.com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment – 0.00% (0/726 lines covered)
  - okio.okio.Buffer – 0.00% (0/687 lines covered)
  - kotlin.text.kotlin.text.StringsKt___StringsKt – 0.00% (0/625 lines covered)
  - com.codename1.androidcompat.rt.com.codename1.androidcompat.rt.TextXmlPullParser – 0.00% (0/623 lines covered)
  - com.codename1.androidcompat.androidx.constraintlayout.core.widgets.com.codename1.androidcompat.androidx.constraintlayout.core.widgets.Flow – 0.00% (0/576 lines covered)

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric	Duration
SIMD kernel backend	scalar fallback (no native SIMD)
SIMD int-add (64K x300)	java 177ms / native 122ms = 1.4x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300)	java 50ms / native 83ms = 0.6x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness	PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 payload size	8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations	6000
Base64 SIMD byte path	gated to scalar (CPU autovectorizes scalar; explicit SIMD not beneficial here)
Base64 CN1 encode	58.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode	52.000 ms
Base64 native encode	286.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (CN1/native)	0.203x (79.7% faster)
Base64 native decode	157.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (CN1/native)	0.331x (66.9% faster)
Image encode benchmark status	skipped (SIMD unsupported)

shai-almog · 2026-10-25T15:26:09Z

Compared 227 screenshots: 227 matched.
✅ JavaScript-port screenshot tests passed.

github-actions · 2026-10-25T15:28:00Z

✅ Continuous Quality Report

Test & Coverage

✅ Tests: 14518 total, 0 failed, 161 skipped
📊 Line coverage: 64.64% [HTML preview] [Download]
- Lowest covered classes
  - com.codename1.io.zip.ZipArchiveOutputStream – 0.00%
  - com.codename1.gaming.level.GameSceneView – 0.00%
  - com.codename1.crash.CrashProtection – 0.00%
  - com.codename1.mapping.JsonValues – 0.00%
  - com.codename1.payment.CommerceManager – 0.00%
  - com.codename1.wearable.WearableMessage – 0.00%
  - com.codename1.ui.plaf.GlassLensBlend – 0.00%
  - com.codename1.vr.VRView – 0.00%
  - com.codename1.appreview.RatingDialog – 0.00%
  - com.codename1.db.ManagedKeys – 0.00%

Static Analysis

SpotBugs [Report archive]
- ✅ ByteCodeTranslator: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ android: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ android-compat: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ android-res-compiler: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ backend: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ backend-test: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ build-engine: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ build-hint-catalog: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ build-hint-tools: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ codenameone-gradle-plugin: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ codenameone-maven-plugin: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ core-unittests: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ desktop-compat-runtime: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ fxml-compiler: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ ios: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ javac: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ javafx-compat: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ project-model: 0 findings (no issues)
- ✅ swing-compat: 0 findings (no issues)
✅ PMD: 0 findings (no issues) [Report archive]
✅ Checkstyle: 0 findings (no issues) [Report archive]

Generated automatically by the PR CI workflow.

shai-almog · 2026-10-25T15:34:45Z

Compared 206 screenshots: 206 matched.
Native Windows port, REAL shipping pipeline: the hellocodenameone screenshot suite rendered by a binary CROSS-COMPILED on Linux (clang-cl + xwin, WebView2 linked) and RUN on a Windows x64 runner. Compared against the in-repo baseline in scripts/windows/screenshots.

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric	Duration
SIMD kernel backend	SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300)	java 56ms / native 6ms = 9.3x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300)	java 56ms / native 5ms = 11.2x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness	PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 native bridge	unavailable (CN1 + SIMD + image benchmarks only)
Base64 payload size	8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations	6000
Base64 SIMD byte path	gated to scalar (CPU autovectorizes scalar; explicit SIMD not beneficial here)
Base64 CN1 encode	75.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode	90.000 ms
Base64 SIMD encode	113.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1)	1.507x (50.7% slower)
Base64 SIMD decode	104.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1)	1.156x (15.6% slower)
Image encode benchmark iterations	100
Image createMask (SIMD off)	9.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on)	3.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.333x (66.7% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off)	25.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on)	27.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	1.080x (8.0% slower)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off)	28.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on)	18.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.643x (35.7% faster)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off)	30.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on)	41.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off)	1.367x (36.7% slower)

shai-almog · 2026-10-25T15:46:19Z

Compared 206 screenshots: 206 matched.
Native Windows port (x64 / Intel-AMD): full hellocodenameone screenshot suite rendered offscreen with Direct2D/DirectWrite, plus the real benchmarks (base64 native/CN1/SIMD, image createMask/applyMask/modifyAlpha/PNG/JPEG, SSE2 SIMD kernels). Compared against the in-repo baseline in scripts/windows/screenshots.

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric	Duration
SIMD kernel backend	SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300)	java 57ms / native 4ms = 14.2x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300)	java 57ms / native 4ms = 14.2x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness	PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 native bridge	unavailable (CN1 + SIMD + image benchmarks only)
Base64 payload size	8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations	6000
Base64 SIMD byte path	gated to scalar (CPU autovectorizes scalar; explicit SIMD not beneficial here)
Base64 CN1 encode	76.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode	89.000 ms
Base64 SIMD encode	113.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1)	1.487x (48.7% slower)
Base64 SIMD decode	99.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1)	1.112x (11.2% slower)
Image encode benchmark iterations	100
Image createMask (SIMD off)	10.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on)	6.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.600x (40.0% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off)	40.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on)	39.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.975x (2.5% faster)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off)	31.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on)	30.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.968x (3.2% faster)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off)	38.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on)	17.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.447x (55.3% faster)

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Windows x64

Runner CPU: AMD64 Family 25 Model 1 Stepping 1, AuthenticAMD (baseline windows-x64@amd64-family-25-model-1-authenticamd)

Ratios are ParparVM / JDK 25: below 1.00x ParparVM is faster (time) or smaller (RAM). Median of 5 interleaved, paired rounds; every run's output was verified. A ratio more than 20% (time) / 25% (RAM) above its baseline in vm/selfhost/perf-baseline/ is a regression and fails; one that far below is an improvement, reported but not failed (a row whose calibration runs were noisier carries a wider tolerance), and for RAM the change must also exceed 0.05x in absolute terms. Both run unpinned on all of the runner's CPUs, with their own default thread counts.

Benchmark	Cores	Time	RAM	Status
hello (WinHelloMain)	4	1.50x (base 1.22x, +22.5%)	0.64x (base 0.94x, -32.3%)	ok
translator (self)	4	0.79x (base 0.83x, -4.7%)	0.54x (base 0.54x, -1.0%)	ok
intArithmetic	4	1.10x (base 1.10x, +0.0%)	0.06x (base 0.06x, +2.6%)	ok
longArithmetic	4	1.14x (base 1.08x, +5.0%)	0.06x (base 0.05x, +3.3%)	ok
mathTranscendental	4	0.79x (base 0.79x, -0.3%)	0.06x (base 0.06x, +2.9%)	ok
arraySequential	4	1.33x (base 1.36x, -2.8%)	0.39x (base 0.39x, +0.3%)	ok
arrayRandom	4	1.03x (base 1.06x, -3.2%)	0.23x (base 0.23x, +0.4%)	ok
objectAllocation	4	1.61x (base 1.56x, +3.0%)	0.30x (base 0.39x, -22.0%)	ok
valueEscape	4	0.10x (base 0.10x, +0.3%)	0.05x (base 0.04x, +3.6%)	ok
hashMapChurn	4	1.89x (base 1.80x, +5.3%)	0.09x (base 0.09x, -1.3%)	ok
stringBuilding	4	1.23x (base 1.22x, +1.1%)	0.29x (base 0.32x, -10.1%)	ok
recursion	4	1.41x (base 1.49x, -5.8%)	0.06x (base 0.06x, +1.5%)	ok
quicksort	4	1.11x (base 1.13x, -2.2%)	0.12x (base 0.12x, +0.9%)	ok

Result: no regression

shai-almog · 2026-10-25T16:16:24Z

Compared 206 screenshots: 206 matched.
Native Linux port (x64), GTK3/Cairo/Pango, ParparVM bytecode-to-C (no JVM): the hellocodenameone screenshot suite rendered by a native ELF built + run on the GitHub x64 runner. Baseline: scripts/linux/screenshots.

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Linux x64

Runner CPU: AMD EPYC 7763 64-Core Processor (baseline linux-x64@amd-epyc-7763-64-core-processor)

Ratios are ParparVM / JDK 25: below 1.00x ParparVM is faster (time) or smaller (RAM). Median of 5 interleaved, paired rounds; every run's output was verified. A ratio more than 20% (time) / 25% (RAM) above its baseline in vm/selfhost/perf-baseline/ is a regression and fails; one that far below is an improvement, reported but not failed (a row whose calibration runs were noisier carries a wider tolerance), and for RAM the change must also exceed 0.05x in absolute terms. Both run unpinned on all of the runner's CPUs, with their own default thread counts.

Benchmark	Cores	Time	RAM	Status
hello (LinuxHelloMain)	4	0.88x (base 0.85x, +4.5%)	0.62x (base 0.83x, -26.1%)	ok
translator (self)	4	0.55x (base 0.64x, -14.3%)	0.46x (base 0.52x, -10.5%)	ok
intArithmetic	4	1.10x (base 1.12x, -1.2%)	0.07x (base 0.06x, +33.6%)	ok
longArithmetic	4	1.08x (base 1.08x, +0.0%)	0.06x (base 0.05x, +4.1%)	ok
mathTranscendental	4	1.09x (base 1.08x, +0.1%)	0.06x (base 0.07x, -19.6%)	ok
arraySequential	4	1.99x (base 2.00x, -0.5%)	0.36x (base 0.36x, -0.4%)	ok
arrayRandom	4	0.93x (base 0.91x, +2.4%)	0.23x (base 0.21x, +9.5%)	ok
objectAllocation	4	1.52x (base 1.65x, -7.8%)	0.29x (base 0.35x, -16.5%)	ok
valueEscape	4	0.10x (base 0.10x, -0.3%)	0.05x (base 0.04x, +4.2%)	ok
hashMapChurn	4	1.46x (base 1.48x, -1.4%)	0.09x (base 0.09x, -0.7%)	ok
stringBuilding	4	1.45x (base 1.39x, +4.4%)	0.26x (base 0.31x, -16.6%)	ok
recursion	4	1.19x (base 1.25x, -5.5%)	0.08x (base 0.08x, +0.7%)	ok
quicksort	4	1.10x (base 1.07x, +2.9%)	0.13x (base 0.11x, +15.6%)	ok

Result: no regression

shai-almog · 2026-10-25T16:16:30Z

Compared 206 screenshots: 206 matched.
Native Linux port (arm64), GTK3/Cairo/Pango, ParparVM bytecode-to-C (no JVM): the hellocodenameone screenshot suite rendered by a native ELF built + run on the GitHub arm64 runner. Baseline: scripts/linux/screenshots-arm.

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Linux arm64

Runner CPU: Neoverse-N2 (baseline linux-arm64@neoverse-n2)

Ratios are ParparVM / JDK 25: below 1.00x ParparVM is faster (time) or smaller (RAM). Median of 5 interleaved, paired rounds; every run's output was verified. A ratio more than 20% (time) / 25% (RAM) above its baseline in vm/selfhost/perf-baseline/ is a regression and fails; one that far below is an improvement, reported but not failed (a row whose calibration runs were noisier carries a wider tolerance), and for RAM the change must also exceed 0.05x in absolute terms. Both run unpinned on all of the runner's CPUs, with their own default thread counts.

Benchmark	Cores	Time	RAM	Status
hello (LinuxHelloMain)	4	0.96x (base 1.02x, -5.7%)	0.66x (base 0.93x, -29.4%)	ok
translator (self)	4	0.77x (base 0.70x, +10.0%)	0.44x (base 0.43x, +2.8%)	ok
intArithmetic	4	1.04x (base 1.04x, -0.0%)	0.03x (base 0.03x, +4.5%)	ok
longArithmetic	4	0.79x (base 0.79x, +0.0%)	0.03x (base 0.03x, +4.9%)	ok
mathTranscendental	4	1.09x (base 1.10x, -0.3%)	0.04x (base 0.03x, +9.4%)	ok
arraySequential	4	0.38x (base 0.36x, +3.8%)	0.37x (base 0.37x, +0.2%)	ok
arrayRandom	4	0.94x (base 0.94x, +0.3%)	0.20x (base 0.20x, +0.6%)	ok
objectAllocation	4	1.96x (base 1.77x, +10.8%)	0.38x (base 0.37x, +2.8%)	ok
valueEscape	4	0.51x (base 0.51x, -0.1%)	0.03x (base 0.03x, +4.9%)	ok
hashMapChurn	4	0.84x (base 0.84x, -0.1%)	0.13x (base 0.12x, +4.1%)	ok
stringBuilding	4	1.45x (base 1.57x, -7.3%)	0.26x (base 0.26x, +0.1%)	ok
recursion	4	1.43x (base 1.43x, -0.6%)	0.04x (base 0.04x, +3.0%)	ok
quicksort	4	1.00x (base 0.99x, +1.0%)	0.09x (base 0.09x, +1.2%)	ok

Result: no regression

Chain the parse cause, drop a redundant qualified name, end the number-sniffing loop without a branch, and reword an adverb. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

github-actions · 2026-10-25T18:03:47Z

✅ ByteCodeTranslator Quality Report

Test & Coverage

✅ Tests: 881 total, 0 failed, 55 skipped

Benchmark Results

Execution Time: 7240 ms
Hotspots (Top 20 sampled methods):
- 9.47% java.lang.Object.hashCode (101 samples)
- 7.69% com.codename1.tools.translator.IteratorEscape.ctorOnlyStoresParamsIntoThis (82 samples)
- 7.22% java.util.ArrayList.indexOf (77 samples)
- 5.06% java.lang.System.identityHashCode (54 samples)
- 4.40% com.codename1.tools.translator.BytecodeMethod.equals (47 samples)
- 2.81% com.codename1.tools.translator.IteratorEscape.mangle (30 samples)
- 2.72% com.codename1.tools.translator.BytecodeMethod.updateInlinableFieldDependencies (29 samples)
- 2.72% java.lang.StringBuilder.append (29 samples)
- 2.44% com.codename1.tools.translator.classfile.analysis.Frame.execute (26 samples)
- 1.41% com.codename1.tools.translator.ReachabilityCull.run (15 samples)
- 1.41% java.lang.String.equals (15 samples)
- 1.41% java.io.FileOutputStream.writeBytes (15 samples)
- 1.41% com.codename1.tools.translator.bytecodes.Invoke.findMethodUp (15 samples)
- 1.31% com.codename1.tools.translator.NativeSymbolIndex.<init> (14 samples)
- 1.31% com.codename1.tools.translator.Parser.cullMethods (14 samples)
- 1.22% com.codename1.tools.translator.bytecodes.Invoke.resolveDirectTarget (13 samples)
- 1.22% java.util.HashMap.hash (13 samples)
- 1.12% com.codename1.tools.translator.BytecodeMethod.addToConstantPool (12 samples)
- 1.12% java.util.AbstractCollection.containsAll (12 samples)
- 1.03% com.codename1.tools.translator.JavascriptReachability.enqueueResolved (11 samples)
⚠️ Coverage report not generated.

Static Analysis

✅ SpotBugs: no findings (report was not generated by the build).
⚠️ PMD report not generated.
⚠️ Checkstyle report not generated.

Generated automatically by the PR CI workflow.

shai-almog · 2026-10-25T18:22:04Z

Compared 206 screenshots: 206 matched.
Native Windows port (arm64 / Apple Silicon - Arm): full hellocodenameone screenshot suite rendered offscreen with Direct2D/DirectWrite, plus the real benchmarks (base64 native/CN1/SIMD, image createMask/applyMask/modifyAlpha/PNG/JPEG, NEON SIMD kernels). Compared against the in-repo baseline in scripts/windows/screenshots.

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric	Duration
SIMD kernel backend	SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300)	java 53ms / native 2ms = 26.5x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300)	java 53ms / native 2ms = 26.5x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness	PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 native bridge	unavailable (CN1 + SIMD + image benchmarks only)
Base64 payload size	8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations	6000
Base64 SIMD byte path	gated to scalar (CPU autovectorizes scalar; explicit SIMD not beneficial here)
Base64 CN1 encode	59.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode	70.000 ms
Base64 SIMD encode	77.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1)	1.305x (30.5% slower)
Base64 SIMD decode	71.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1)	1.014x (1.4% slower)
Image encode benchmark iterations	100
Image createMask (SIMD off)	5.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on)	1.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.200x (80.0% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off)	20.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on)	22.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	1.100x (10.0% slower)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off)	17.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on)	13.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.765x (23.5% faster)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off)	15.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on)	9.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.600x (40.0% faster)

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Windows arm64

Runner CPU: ARMv8 (64-bit) Family 8 Model D49 Revision 0, MICROSOFT CORPORATION (baseline windows-arm64@armv8-64-bit-family-8-model-d49-microsoft-corporation)

Ratios are ParparVM / JDK 25: below 1.00x ParparVM is faster (time) or smaller (RAM). Median of 5 interleaved, paired rounds; every run's output was verified. A ratio more than 20% (time) / 25% (RAM) above its baseline in vm/selfhost/perf-baseline/ is a regression and fails; one that far below is an improvement, reported but not failed (a row whose calibration runs were noisier carries a wider tolerance), and for RAM the change must also exceed 0.05x in absolute terms. Both run unpinned on all of the runner's CPUs, with their own default thread counts.

Benchmark	Cores	Time	RAM	Status
hello (WinHelloMain)	4	1.02x (base 1.11x, -7.5%)	0.60x (base 0.75x, -20.6%)	ok
translator (self)	4	0.85x (base 0.84x, +1.5%)	0.49x (base 0.51x, -2.5%)	ok
intArithmetic	4	1.04x (base 1.04x, +0.0%)	0.06x (base 0.06x, +3.1%)	ok
longArithmetic	4	0.79x (base 0.80x, -0.1%)	0.06x (base 0.06x, +3.4%)	ok
mathTranscendental	4	0.72x (base 0.72x, +0.1%)	0.07x (base 0.06x, +1.7%)	ok
arraySequential	4	0.36x (base 0.46x, -19.8%)	0.39x (base 0.39x, +0.0%)	ok
arrayRandom	4	0.94x (base 0.94x, +0.4%)	0.23x (base 0.23x, +0.2%)	ok
objectAllocation	4	1.78x (base 1.82x, -2.4%)	0.40x (base 0.43x, -6.3%)	ok
valueEscape	4	0.76x (base 0.76x, +0.0%)	0.05x (base 0.05x, +3.7%)	ok
hashMapChurn	4	1.00x (base 0.98x, +1.3%)	0.12x (base 0.12x, -2.2%)	ok
stringBuilding	4	1.61x (base 1.43x, +12.8%)	0.27x (base 0.27x, -0.2%)	ok
recursion	4	1.55x (base 1.46x, +5.9%)	0.07x (base 0.07x, +1.3%)	ok
quicksort	4	1.00x (base 1.00x, +0.4%)	0.12x (base 0.12x, +0.5%)	ok

Result: no regression

shai-almog · 2026-10-25T22:46:38Z

Compared 192 screenshots: 192 matched.
✅ Native Mac screenshot tests passed.

Benchmark Results

VM Translation Time: 0 seconds
Compilation Time: 741 seconds

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric	Duration
SIMD kernel backend	SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300)	java 51ms / native 3ms = 17.0x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300)	java 55ms / native 3ms = 18.3x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness	PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 native bridge	unavailable (CN1 + SIMD + image benchmarks only)
Base64 payload size	8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations	6000
Base64 SIMD byte path	active (NEON-accelerated)
Base64 CN1 encode	58.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode	55.000 ms
Image encode benchmark iterations	100
Image createMask (SIMD off)	16.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on)	10.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.625x (37.5% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off)	93.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on)	102.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	1.097x (9.7% slower)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off)	98.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on)	98.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off)	1.000x (0.0% slower)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off)	78.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on)	115.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off)	1.474x (47.4% slower)

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): macOS arm64

Runner CPU: Apple M1 (Virtual) (baseline macos-arm64)

Ratios are ParparVM / JDK 25: below 1.00x ParparVM is faster (time) or smaller (RAM). Median of 5 interleaved, paired rounds; every run's output was verified. A ratio more than 20% (time) / 25% (RAM) above its baseline in vm/selfhost/perf-baseline/ is a regression and fails; one that far below is an improvement, reported but not failed (a row whose calibration runs were noisier carries a wider tolerance), and for RAM the change must also exceed 0.05x in absolute terms. Both run unpinned on all of the runner's CPUs, with their own default thread counts.

Benchmark	Cores	Time	RAM	Status
hello (HelloCodenameOne)	3	0.81x (base 0.96x, -15.2%)	0.88x (base 0.93x, -5.3%)	ok
translator (self)	3	0.71x (base 0.62x, +13.7%)	0.76x (base 0.78x, -2.9%)	ok
intArithmetic	3	1.04x (base 1.03x, +0.5%)	0.12x (base 0.12x, +1.4%)	ok
longArithmetic	3	1.01x (base 1.03x, -1.3%)	0.11x (base 0.07x, +60.6%)	ok
mathTranscendental	3	0.96x (base 1.01x, -5.0%)	0.12x (base 0.12x, +1.1%)	ok
arraySequential	3	0.45x (base 0.42x, +6.0%)	0.53x (base 0.53x, +0.2%)	ok
arrayRandom	3	0.93x (base 0.99x, -6.3%)	0.33x (base 0.32x, +0.3%)	ok
objectAllocation	3	1.13x (base 1.11x, +2.5%)	0.70x (base 0.72x, -3.2%)	ok
valueEscape	3	0.48x (base 0.51x, -4.4%)	0.09x (base 0.09x, -2.1%)	ok
hashMapChurn	3	1.09x (base 1.18x, -7.0%)	0.07x (base 0.07x, +7.7%)	ok
stringBuilding	3	0.88x (base 0.84x, +4.4%)	0.46x (base 0.46x, -1.5%)	ok
recursion	3	1.22x (base 1.24x, -0.8%)	0.12x (base 0.12x, +1.1%)	ok
quicksort	3	1.00x (base 1.01x, -0.9%)	0.11x (base 0.11x, +1.2%)	ok

Result: no regression

shai-almog · 2026-10-26T01:22:48Z

Compared 188 screenshots: 188 matched.
✅ Native Mac screenshot tests passed.

Benchmark Results

VM Translation Time: 0 seconds
Compilation Time: 732 seconds

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric	Duration
SIMD kernel backend	SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300)	java 56ms / native 3ms = 18.6x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300)	java 59ms / native 3ms = 19.6x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness	PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 payload size	8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations	6000
Base64 SIMD byte path	active (NEON-accelerated)
Base64 CN1 encode	79.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode	66.000 ms
Base64 native encode	823.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (CN1/native)	0.096x (90.4% faster)
Base64 native decode	367.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (CN1/native)	0.180x (82.0% faster)
Base64 SIMD encode	76.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1)	0.962x (3.8% faster)
Base64 SIMD decode	66.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1)	1.000x (0.0% slower)
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/native)	0.092x (90.8% faster)
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/native)	0.180x (82.0% faster)
Image encode benchmark iterations	100
Image createMask (SIMD off)	28.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on)	24.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.857x (14.3% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off)	116.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on)	86.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.741x (25.9% faster)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off)	80.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on)	75.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.938x (6.3% faster)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off)	56.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on)	50.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.893x (10.7% faster)

shai-almog · 2026-10-26T01:26:12Z

Compared 189 screenshots: 189 matched.
✅ Native iOS Metal screenshot tests passed.

Benchmark Results

VM Translation Time: 0 seconds
Compilation Time: 2232 seconds

Build and Run Timing

Metric	Duration
Simulator Boot	49000 ms
Simulator Boot (Run)	2000 ms
App Install	29000 ms
App Launch	81000 ms
Test Execution	548000 ms

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric	Duration
SIMD kernel backend	SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300)	java 311ms / native 3ms = 103.6x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300)	java 198ms / native 6ms = 33.0x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness	PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 payload size	8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations	6000
Base64 SIMD byte path	active (NEON-accelerated)
Base64 CN1 encode	129.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode	166.000 ms
Base64 native encode	2309.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (CN1/native)	0.056x (94.4% faster)
Base64 native decode	1851.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (CN1/native)	0.090x (91.0% faster)
Base64 SIMD encode	74.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1)	0.574x (42.6% faster)
Base64 SIMD decode	135.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1)	0.813x (18.7% faster)
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/native)	0.032x (96.8% faster)
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/native)	0.073x (92.7% faster)
Image encode benchmark iterations	100
Image createMask (SIMD off)	22.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on)	18.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	0.818x (18.2% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off)	199.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on)	688.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off)	3.457x (245.7% slower)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off)	578.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on)	715.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off)	1.237x (23.7% slower)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off)	91.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on)	755.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off)	8.297x (729.7% slower)

shai-almog · 2026-10-26T05:22:02Z

Compared 184 screenshots: 184 matched.
✅ Native Apple TV (tvOS, Metal) screenshot tests passed.

shai-almog · 2026-10-26T06:35:21Z

Compared 249 screenshots: 249 matched.
✅ Native Apple Watch (watchOS, Core Graphics) screenshot tests passed.

shai-almog and others added 3 commits October 25, 2026 16:42

docs: move JSON contract snippets into the backend demos; self-contai…

ad4eb26

…ned adapter example Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs: Money demo parses strictly and refuses overflow; adapter accept…

4c5058e

…s null Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs: Money demo accepts the largest amount a long holds

7af27aa

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Fix PMD and Vale gate findings

338bfaf

Chain the parse cause, drop a redundant qualified name, end the number-sniffing loop without a branch, and reword an adverb. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

shai-almog merged commit df645f6 into master Oct 25, 2026
114 of 121 checks passed

shai-almog deleted the json-codec-extensibility branch October 25, 2026 19:19

Conversation

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 25, 2026

Cloudflare Preview

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Flutter vs Codename One

android

ios

javascript

linux

macos

windows

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Native Android coverage

Native Android coverage

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Uh oh!

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Continuous Quality Report

Test & Coverage

Static Analysis

Uh oh!

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Uh oh!

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Windows x64

Uh oh!

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Linux x64

Uh oh!

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Linux arm64

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 25, 2026

✅ ByteCodeTranslator Quality Report

Test & Coverage

Benchmark Results

Static Analysis

Uh oh!

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Windows arm64

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): macOS arm64

Uh oh!

shai-almog commented Oct 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Uh oh!

shai-almog commented Oct 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

shai-almog commented Oct 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading