testthat updates

[krlmlr]

• parallel testing
• updating golden files

Will double-check locally with non-parallel testing.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #978 (9a4e49c) into main (2fa7369) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #978   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.12%   90.12%           
=======================================
  Files          47       47           
  Lines        2664     2664           
=======================================
  Hits         2401     2401           
  Misses        263      263           

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 1fc435c is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 34.9ms -> 35ms [-0.42%, +1.17%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 1.48s -> 1.47s [-0.83%, +0.12%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 3.89s -> 3.88s [-0.79%, +0.34%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if fa2f137 is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 32.5ms -> 32.4ms [-1.54%, +1%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 1.32s -> 1.32s [-0.78%, +1.14%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 3.53s -> 3.54s [-0.82%, +1.61%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[lorenzwalthert]

Thanks.

• I am not sure parallelization is a good idea for tests that assert relative speed, e.g. tests/testthat/test-cache-high-level-api.R:150 or tests involving n_times_faster_with_cache(). Alternative is to run these tests in separate GitHub Actions. Or just see if and observe if parallelisation is causing problems in the future (in this PR, it seems not, but maybe the behaviour is not so stable).
• I am not sure why the trees were outdated. Can you explain why and what you did to update them? FYI I recently also removed them from the built package and reduced size of the built package by 50% (Half the size of built package #879).

[krlmlr]

We could still run serially in CI/CD?

No idea about the trees. The tests didn't fail when the trees were out of date, they just were updated silently. Could that be the reason?

[lorenzwalthert]

Trees are not involved in unit tests, they are just for us to understand the code we want to style I think. So that's fine.

We could still run serially in CI/CD?

Let's merge and see if it causes any problems in the future. You can merge if you are read.