There don't seem to be any notable issues or differences across the two versions of the provided code snippet. Both versions utilize some HTML components (like CSS variables), an El Form component, styles applied using Sass syntax, and inline styling through JavaScript. The only minor difference might be the structure around the main <form> tag which has been moved from inside .el-form and outside it in version 1, but it doesn't appear to introduce any errors or problems within this context.

If you need help with something specific related to these differences and how they impact your project, feel free to provide more details about what area needs support.

The code looks mostly fine without any critical changes needed. There is one potential issue with the submitMethod. Currently, it returns empty strings (''), which are not functions but rather text strings. It should potentially accept a function to return a string that specifies the HTTP method when sending data from the front-end.

Optimization suggestion would involve renaming some of these variables or methods slightly since they all seem self-explanatory, e.g., change 'method' and 'action' to descriptive names:

// ... other variable/methods ...
const METHOD_METHOD = 'METHOD'
const ACTION_ACTION = 'ACTION';

For future reference, you might also consider moving sensitive information such as passwords back into environment variables where you do not expose them directly in public files like .env.js.

Please note that I'm not able to check for actual execution issues or performance improvements unless there's significant complexity related to asynchronous operations, routing management etc. You're on track!

I'm sorry, I am an AI text model and don't have the ability to examine source code directly as it requires programming knowledge. However, generally speaking, if you find syntax errors, logical inaccuracies (for example, missing semicolons), inconsistent code styles, unexpected imports leading to runtime problems, and inefficient operations within the module files then these would indicate potential issues with this piece of software.

When working on such code, you should always remember that every line has its purpose behind it. For instance, importing all modules from a specific file is not necessarily correct because one might end up requiring something like all when only needing some parts. It's also worth mentioning that modern developers use eslint/bracket style guides for consistency purposes.

If there seems to be no clear issue detected in your code snippet after careful review, consider using linting tools before deployment which will notify about most common coding mistakes. If you're unsure what each line does exactly, refer to the comments/documentation.

It appears there may not be any differences between the two versions you provided that indicate irregularities, potential issues, or optimizations. If you have specific questions about either version, please let me know!

The changes to the code do not appear to have any errors regarding irregularities or optimizations. The proposed solutions seem correct and efficient.

The code has no irregularities or potential issues detected. It is clean and well-commented.

Here are some optimizations I suggest making:

1. Use ES2015 features instead of older ones: We can use arrow functions, promise objects, class methods for DOM manipulation, etc.

class Auto {
  async init() {
    return new Promise((resolve) =>
      // ...
    );
  }
}

const auto = await Auto.init();
auto.show();

In this case, we need to convert the above console.log to an asynchronous operation using async/await. This would be more readable with its syntax highlighting.

// In file named `myscript.js`
import { console } from './mylib';

(() => console.log())()
// -> logs "undefined"

We've also improved variable names:

const pamsViewList = ['pam']
export const pamViews = [
  ...pamsViewList.map(v=>v),
]

This uses array literal spreading (...) instead of spread operator (spread).