🤖 Update Mock Benchmark Results

[thomhurst]

Automated Mock Benchmark Update

This PR updates the mock benchmark documentation with the latest results from the Mock Benchmarks workflow.

Benchmarks Produced

Individual benchmark artifacts are available for download:

• mock-benchmark-MockCreation
• mock-benchmark-Setup
• mock-benchmark-Invocation
• mock-benchmark-Verification
• mock-benchmark-Callback
• mock-benchmark-CombinedWorkflow
• mock-benchmark-summary (aggregated overview)

Libraries Compared

Libraries are discovered dynamically from the benchmark output. See the generated summary.json for the full list.

Changes

• Updated mock benchmark data in docs/static/benchmarks/mocks/latest.json
• Regenerated mock benchmark documentation in docs/docs/benchmarks/mocks/
• Updated mock benchmark summary in docs/static/benchmarks/mocks/summary.json

Workflow Run

• Run ID: 26488547632
• Triggered: schedule

---

🤖 This PR was automatically created and will be merged automatically once CI checks pass.

[codacy-production]

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

_{NEW Get contextual insights on your PRs based on Codacy's metrics, along with PR and Jira context, without leaving GitHub. Enable AI reviewer
TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.}

[claude]

Review: Automated Mock Benchmark Update

This is a clean, automated documentation-only PR with no code changes — just refreshed benchmark data and timestamps. The automation pipeline is working as expected.

Overall Assessment

The vast majority of benchmark delta falls within normal run-to-run variance (1–5%). The data format, chart axes, and file structure are all consistent.

One Item Worth Investigating

In the Callback (with args) benchmark, TUnit.Mocks regressed ~13.7%:

	Previous	Current	Delta
TUnit.Mocks (Callback with args)	755.9 ns	859.4 ns	+13.7%

Compare that to the other libraries in the same run, which moved at most 2–3%:

• Imposter: 544.2 → 533.2 ns (-2%)
• NSubstitute: 4,686.3 → 4,704.6 ns (+0.4%)

A 13.7% swing for TUnit.Mocks while competitors are flat is larger than benchmark noise typically produces. It may be:

1. A genuine performance regression introduced recently
2. A one-off outlier due to CI machine load

Suggestion: If a second benchmark run shows the same pattern, it's worth investigating the callback-with-args path in TUnit.Mocks source generation for unintended overhead introduced since the last run.

Everything Else

All other metrics look within expected variance. The automation, file paths, chart regeneration, and JSON schema updates are correct. No structural concerns with the PR itself — safe to merge once CI passes.