This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 19, 2024. It is now read-only.
Improve memory footprint #374
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- Use alias for each type of coverage node. - Use custom converter for coverage values.
Otherwise, applying the flyweight pattern will not be possible.
5 tasks
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #374 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 72.19% 72.68% +0.49%
- Complexity 963 975 +12
============================================
Files 81 82 +1
Lines 3506 3632 +126
Branches 410 432 +22
============================================
+ Hits 2531 2640 +109
- Misses 839 848 +9
- Partials 136 144 +8
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Reuse coverage instances with coverage and missed < 16.
fo-code
suggested changes
May 2, 2022
| xStream.alias("method", MethodCoverageNode.class); | ||
| xStream.alias("leaf", CoverageLeaf.class); | ||
| xStream.alias("coverage", Coverage.class); | ||
| xStream.alias("fraction", Fraction.class); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fraction is not used for serialization anymore. This alias can be removed.
…serialization # Conflicts: # plugin/src/main/java/io/jenkins/plugins/coverage/model/Coverage.java # plugin/src/main/java/io/jenkins/plugins/coverage/model/CoverageBuildAction.java # plugin/src/main/java/io/jenkins/plugins/coverage/model/CoverageNode.java # plugin/src/test/java/io/jenkins/plugins/coverage/model/CoverageNodeTest.java # plugin/src/test/java/io/jenkins/plugins/coverage/model/CoverageTest.java # plugin/src/test/java/io/jenkins/plugins/coverage/model/FileCoverageNodeTest.java
# Conflicts: # plugin/src/main/java/io/jenkins/plugins/coverage/model/CoveragePercentage.java # plugin/src/test/java/io/jenkins/plugins/coverage/model/FileCoverageNodeTest.java
@uhafner Yes, the coverage/line-mapping is the place where a lot of storage can be saved - the other maps used in Your idea for the serialization looks like the perfect improvement for this in my opinion. |
fo-code
approved these changes
May 22, 2022
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Improve XStream serialization and memory footprint for coverage instances:
Coverageinstances using a builderCoverageinstancesThe analysis-model XML now is 3.7M rather than 5.7M before.
After compacting the new mappings of line to coverage the size is even smaller (2.7M):
In a final step, all 4 new maps and sets have been simplified and we now have 2.3M: