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

Make some benchmark code more explicit #536

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 26, 2025
Merged

Conversation

Swatinem
Copy link
Contributor

In particular, this better highlights the difference between a shallow and a full parse of the Report.

It also focuses the totals code a bit more, making the different operations more obvious. The filtering has also been slightly updated.

As a driveby fix, this fixes the Report.get(bind) code, which was completely broken (because noone was using it?)

In particular, this better highlights the difference between a shallow and a full parse of the Report.

It also focuses the `totals` code a bit more, making the different operations more obvious.
The filtering has also been slightly updated.

As a driveby fix, this fixes the `Report.get(bind)` code, which was completely broken (because noone was using it?)
@Swatinem Swatinem requested a review from a team February 25, 2025 12:17
@Swatinem Swatinem self-assigned this Feb 25, 2025
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Feb 25, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #536 will create unknown performance changes

Comparing swatinem/explicit-bench (7158c1a) with main (3bcf3c9)

Summary

⚠️ No benchmarks were detected in both the base of the PR and the PR.\

@Swatinem Swatinem added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 26, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit b228e57 Feb 26, 2025
8 checks passed
@Swatinem Swatinem deleted the swatinem/explicit-bench branch February 26, 2025 09:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants