-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
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
feat(minor): Exporter specific configurations #286
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat(minor): Exporter specific configurations #286
Conversation
b577a14
to
c0e674d
Compare
Would like some feedback on how/whether we'd prefer to do unit and/or integration tests for this feature. |
c0e674d
to
c1ba1a2
Compare
This was a redundant typealias
Groups BenchmarkBaseline results by "profile" - meaning an execution of a specific benchmark and its various results (for each execution). This allows us to store information pertinent to the entire benchmark in one place rather than repeating it for each BenchmarkResult.
This allows us to forward information about the benchmark down to the exporters.
4bc0a5d
to
b354858
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #286 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 69.48% 68.86% -0.62%
==========================================
Files 33 35 +2
Lines 3938 3979 +41
==========================================
+ Hits 2736 2740 +4
- Misses 1202 1239 +37
Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
Apologies for very late feedback, currently no bandwidth but will revert asap. |
Overall LGTM, for integration testing I would consider to run and compare/verify a few of the public users of benchmarks in addition to your internal ones - should at some point create a verification suite using such sources, but outside of scope of this PR... Some good candidates: Just run and compare that things match up with main visavi PR. WDYT? |
I can do that for sure. Are you thinking just making sure their My assumption is that this is a non-breaking change and I can certainly confirm that this way. Is there another comparison you have in mind besides just a continued, successful |
If you are up for it, looking at adding a unit test or two for the export functionality would be great - otherwise verifying export in some other format as part of the above verification would be good. My assumption is also that this should be a non breaking change, thus the suggestion above. Also may consider adding a section to the DocC documentation on this functionality. |
Would it make sense to address #227 while you are at it possibly? |
Happy to address that too. Seems like it should be a separate MR but I'll see if I can take care of it this weekend. |
Description
A series of refactors that culminate in enabling exporter specific configurations to be provided at benchmark initialization.
This is intended to support a use case like the following.
This PR is more easily reviewed by commit.
How Has This Been Tested?
I manually tested the exporter csv against an instance of Influx using Influx Data Explorer and querying a raw csv.
I followed instructions listed here
Minimal checklist:
DocC
code-level documentation for any public interfaces exported by the package