Is beartype cost acceptable?

Comienza con zimscraperlib/init.py y la llamada a beartype_this_package(), luego revisa la ruta crítica zimscraperlib.rewriting y el comando de benchmark de warc2zim documentado. Reproduce las ejecuciones emparejadas si es necesario y compara el tiempo de pared, el tiempo de CPU y el RSS máximo. Se considera terminado cuando se haya acordado y documentado si la cobertura debe limitarse, configurarse con una estrategia más económica o deshabilitarse para ejecuciones seleccionadas.

Context

While investigating a memory leak (fixed in #324 — a closure in RxRewriter.rewrite() was being re-decorated by beartype's claw hook on every call, permanently pinning it via beartype's own is_object_blacklisted cache), the fix removed the leak but also raised the question of how much runtime cost beartype_this_package() (used project-wide in zimscraperlib/__init__.py) actually adds. This issue is to share those numbers and discuss whether the tradeoff is the one we want.

Methodology

Ran warc2zim to completion, twice, on the same input, same machine, back to back:

warc2zim --publisher=openZIM --content-header-bytes-length=2048 \
  --zim-file=www.physicsclassroom.com_56e21a6e.zim --name=www.physicsclassroom.com_56e21a6e \
  --scraper-suffix "zimit 3.1.2" --output output \
  --url https://www.physicsclassroom.com/ \
  <local WARC, 731MB compressed, ~14.5K ZIM entries> --overwrite

wrapped in /usr/bin/time -v for wall-clock, CPU, and peak RSS.

• Run A: zimscraperlib as-is (beartype_this_package() active).
• Run B: same install, with the single line beartype_this_package() in zimscraperlib/__init__.py commented out (everything else identical), bytecode cache cleared between runs.

Both runs post-date the #324 leak fix, so memory is no longer confounded by that bug.

Results

Both runs completed successfully with an identical entry count. Memory is essentially the same between the two (the small gap is within run-to-run noise).

Takeaway

Runtime type-checking via beartype_this_package() costs roughly 15-18% additional wall-clock/CPU time on this workload, with no meaningful memory cost of its own now that #324 is fixed.

Discussion

Is this tradeoff (broad runtime type-safety across zimscraperlib, for ~15-18% slower conversions) the one we want, or should beartype's coverage be scoped down — e.g. excluding hot paths like zimscraperlib.rewriting from beartype_this_package(), or using a cheaper BeartypeStrategy for those modules — while keeping full checking elsewhere, or allowing to fully disable beartype "on-demand" (e.g. enable it only for unit and e2e tests of scraperlib and scrapers)?