This PR contains all work for finishing integration of first Component List Panel in the IDE:
* It adds a stub for the whole Component Browser View. The documentation panel is re-used from the old searcher.
* It has the presenter implementation, integrating the view with Hierarchical Component List from the controller.
* It extends the View API, so the integration is possible, making use of Component Group Set wrapper.
* The selection integration was also merged into this PR, because it depended on the API extension mentioned above. However, we should avoid such practice in the future.
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3919101/177816427-8c4285b4-8941-4048-a400-52f4acf77a9f.mp4
# Important Notes
There are some known issues, to-be-fixed in the future.
* The performance is bad. It should be improved with new text::Area, and the decent one shall come with [GridView inside component browser](https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/182561072)
* There is no keyboard navigation. It should also be delivered with [GridView](https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/182561072).
* The Favorites section is not [filtered out by node source type](https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/182661634).
### Pull Request Description
Using the new tooling (#3491), I investigated the **performance / compile-time tradeoff** of different codegen options for release mode builds. By scripting the testing procedure, I was able to explore many possible combinations of options, which is important because their interactions (on both application performance and build time) are complex. I found **two candidate profiles** that offer specific advantages over the current `release` settings (`baseline`):
- `thin16`: Supports incremental compiles in 1/3 the time of `baseline` in common cases. Application runs about 2% slower than `baseline`.
- `fat1-O4`: Application performs 13% better than `baseline`. Compile time is almost 3x `baseline`, and non-incremental.
(See key in first chart for the settings defining these profiles.)
We can build faster or run faster, though not in the same build. Because the effect sizes are large enough to be impactful to developer and user experience, respectively, I think we should consider having it both ways. We could **split the `release` profile** into two profiles to serve different purposes:
- `release`: A profile that supports fast developer iteration, while offering realistic performance.
- `production`: A maximally-optimized profile, for nightly builds and actual releases.
Since `wasm-pack` doesn't currently support custom profiles (rustwasm/wasm-pack#1111), we can't use a Cargo profile for `production`; however, we can implement our own profile by overriding rustc flags.
### Performance details
As you can see, `thin16` is slightly slower than `baseline`; `fat1-O4` is dramatically faster.
<details>
<summary>Methodology (click to show)</summary>
I developed a procedure for benchmarking "whole application" performance, using the new "open project" workflow (which opens the IDE and loads a complex project), and some statistical analysis to account for variance. To gather this data:
Build the application with profiling:
`./run.sh ide build --profiling-level=debug`
Run the `open_project` workflow repeatedly:
`for i in $(seq 0 9); do dist/ide/linux-unpacked/enso --entry-point profile --workflow open_project --save-profile open_project_thin16_${i}.json; done`
For each profile recorded, take the new `total_self_time` output of the `intervals` tool; gather into CSV:
`echo $(for i in $(seq 0 9); do target/rust/debug/intervals < open_project_thin16_${i}.json | tail -n1 | awk '{print $2}'; do`
(Note that the output of intervals should not be considered stable; this command may need modification in the future. Eventually it would be nice to support formatted outputs...)
The data is ready to graph. I used the `boxplot` method of the [seaborn](https://seaborn.pydata.org/index.html) package, in order to show the distribution of data.
</details>
#### Build times
In the case of changing a file in `enso-prelude`, with the current `baseline` settings rebuilding takes over 3 minutes. With the `thin16` settings, the same rebuild completes in 40 seconds.
(To gather this data on different hardware or in the future, just run the new `bench-build.sh` script for each case to be measured.)
Implement a command that launches the application, runs a series of steps (a "workflow"), writes a profile to a file, and exits.
See: [#181775808](https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/181775808)
# Important Notes
- The command to capture run and profile is used like: `./run profile --workflow=new_project --save-profile=out.json`. Defining some more workflows (collapse nodes, create node and edit value) comes next; they are implemented with the same infrastructure as the integration-tests.
- The `--save-profile` option can also be used when profiling interactively; when the option is provided, capturing a profile with the hotkey will write a file instead of dumping the data to the devtools console.
- If the IDE panics, the error message is now printed to the console that invoked the process, as well as the devtools console. (If a batch workflow fails, this allows us to see why.)
- New functionality (writing profile files, quitting on command, logging to console) relies on Electron APIs. These APIs are implemented in `index.js`, bridged to the render process in `preload.js`, and wrapped for use in Rust in a `debug_api` crate.
* profiling instrumentation
* Support native testing with mock impl of `mod js`
* Add benchmarks
* Wrapper: support methods.
* `#[profile]`: work in any context
* feature-gate lineno info that breaks IDE
* Support async; more docs; add perf analysis
* docs & formatting
