-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
benchmark: remove input param manipulation #41741
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks 🙏
/test |
@MrJithil there are two kinds of tests in Node:
I've gone ahead and added a label to this PR to automatically trigger CI :) |
Thanks @benjamingr |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Oh yeah, I'll start a benchmark run @Mesteery Edit: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/1091/ |
There are some benchmark tests in CI. I don't know how the coverage for them is though. Edit: Here https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/test/benchmark/test-benchmark-assert.js |
The coverage is minimal. Each benchmark file runs exactly one condition and that's it. The purpose is to make sure there aren't benchmarks that are completely broken and can't run at all. That used to happen. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
/request-ci |
Commit Queue failed- Loading data for nodejs/node/pull/41741 ✔ Done loading data for nodejs/node/pull/41741 ----------------------------------- PR info ------------------------------------ Title benchmark: remove input param manipulation (#41741) ⚠ Could not retrieve the email or name of the PR author's from user's GitHub profile! Branch MrJithil:todo-task-4 -> nodejs:master Labels assert, test, benchmark, needs-ci Commits 1 - benchmark: avoid input param manipulation Committers 1 - MrJithil PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/41741 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh Reviewed-By: Mestery Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig Reviewed-By: Mary Marchini ------------------------------ Generated metadata ------------------------------ PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/41741 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh Reviewed-By: Mestery Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig Reviewed-By: Mary Marchini -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ℹ This PR was created on Sat, 29 Jan 2022 05:53:10 GMT ✔ Approvals: 6 ✔ - Benjamin Gruenbaum (@benjamingr): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/41741#pullrequestreview-866902469 ✔ - Mohammed Keyvanzadeh (@VoltrexMaster): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/41741#pullrequestreview-866928878 ✔ - Mestery (@Mesteery): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/41741#pullrequestreview-866932788 ✔ - Luigi Pinca (@lpinca): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/41741#pullrequestreview-867009867 ✔ - Colin Ihrig (@cjihrig) (TSC): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/41741#pullrequestreview-867200235 ✔ - Mary Marchini (@mmarchini) (TSC): https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/41741#pullrequestreview-867225186 ✖ GitHub CI is still running ℹ Last Full PR CI on 2022-02-03T17:32:44Z: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/42335/ ℹ Last Benchmark CI on 2022-01-31T10:28:30Z: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/1091/ - Querying data for job/node-test-pull-request/42335/ ✔ Last Jenkins CI successful -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ✔ Aborted `git node land` session in /home/runner/work/node/node/.ncuhttps://github.com/nodejs/node/actions/runs/1791088414 |
I don't understand why one of the jobs is still marked as running on GitHub, while the same job is successful on Jenkins. |
Help wanted on this |
PR-URL: #41741 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh <mohammadkeyvanzade94@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mestery <mestery@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mary Marchini <oss@mmarchini.me> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Landed in 217acb9 |
PR-URL: #41741 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh <mohammadkeyvanzade94@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mestery <mestery@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mary Marchini <oss@mmarchini.me> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #41741 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh <mohammadkeyvanzade94@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mestery <mestery@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mary Marchini <oss@mmarchini.me> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #41741 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh <mohammadkeyvanzade94@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mestery <mestery@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mary Marchini <oss@mmarchini.me> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#41741 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh <mohammadkeyvanzade94@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mestery <mestery@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mary Marchini <oss@mmarchini.me> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#41741 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh <mohammadkeyvanzade94@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mestery <mestery@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mary Marchini <oss@mmarchini.me> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #41741 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh <mohammadkeyvanzade94@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mestery <mestery@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mary Marchini <oss@mmarchini.me> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
PR-URL: #41741 Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mohammed Keyvanzadeh <mohammadkeyvanzade94@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mestery <mestery@protonmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mary Marchini <oss@mmarchini.me> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
I just noticed this and it seems like my comment was misunderstood :). Any variable coming from the tests definition should be taken one by one instead of being changed inside of the method as the definition is printed as it is. If the method uses something else, the definition does not fit anymore.
|
Worked on a
TODO
which demands to avoid the manipulation of input param