Skip to content
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

BFC-2767: adding benchmark test and action #11623

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

patrickhuie19
Copy link
Contributor

@patrickhuie19 patrickhuie19 commented Dec 19, 2023

BENCHMARKS: BenchmarkAdd

Copy link
Contributor

I see that you haven't updated any README files. Would it make sense to do so?

@patrickhuie19 patrickhuie19 force-pushed the BFC-2767-continuous-benchmarking branch 23 times, most recently from e36404d to 9d63384 Compare December 22, 2023 01:20
@patrickhuie19 patrickhuie19 force-pushed the BFC-2767-continuous-benchmarking branch from 9d63384 to 417fc1e Compare December 22, 2023 01:36
@cl-sonarqube-production
Copy link

SonarQube Quality Gate

Quality Gate failed

Failed condition C Reliability Rating on New Code (is worse than A)

See analysis details on SonarQube

Fix issues before they fail your Quality Gate with SonarLint SonarLint in your IDE.

uses: actions/checkout@v3

- name: Run Go Benchmark Action
uses: patrickhuie19/[email protected]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we have a chainlink repo or some other standard place that this ought to stored?

i read the action in the other repo and have a few questions/comments:

  • it's not clear what syntax is needed in the PR body to set the benchmarks. this needs to be in the description. based on my reading of the sed, i think the format is expected to be ... BENCHMARK: A,B,C ... where BENCHMARK: is the token and the value is supposed be a CSV
  • i don't understand if there is a set of on-by-default benchmarks. the added code here suggests yes, but i didn't find clear default logic in the other repo or here

Copy link
Contributor Author

@patrickhuie19 patrickhuie19 Dec 28, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we have a chainlink repo or some other standard place that this ought to be stored?

Yep - and I'll port/copy the action I created in my personal repo over to there. We can hold off on merging this until it's in the right place - thus this is a draft.

I was working in my repo for several reasons: 1. I didn't have write access to what I needed, and 2. Testing this stuff requires a ton of commit churn, so I needed to get commits and tags up ASAP to start hacking on this

it's not clear what syntax is needed in the PR body to set the benchmarks. this needs to be in the description. based on my reading of the sed, i think the format is expected to be ... BENCHMARK: A,B,C ... where BENCHMARK: is the token and the value is supposed be a CSV

README: https://github.com/patrickhuie19/benchmark-action

i don't understand if there is a set of on-by-default benchmarks. the added code here suggests yes, but i didn't find clear default logic in the other repo or here

On-by default benchmarks have to be specified as an input to the action so that those benchmarks are run for merges. There are no PR descriptions for merges.

I'm still a little unsatisfied with demonstrating how the behavior of merges will work (both to me as the hacker and you as the reviewer). So I'll try and figure out a way to show how that'll work before we merge this to develop.

Copy link
Contributor

This PR is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Feb 27, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Mar 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants