Great Benchable Refactor and the split of benchbisect: command
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Raku
- Stars
- 19
- Forks
- 16
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
<AlexDaniel> bench: releases
(^40000).grep({!/1/}).elems.say
<benchable6> AlexDaniel, starting to benchmark the 21 given commits
<AlexDaniel> please benchable6 don't act stupid, just gist what you have…
<AlexDaniel> or I'll change your code even more that you'll not recognize yourself in a mirror
<benchable6> AlexDaniel, «hit the total time limit of 240 seconds»
It did a good job in the end, even found the commit that caused the regression. Still, I want to simplify it.
When asked for releases, I want it to test just what was asked. If, at some point, I decide that I want to investigate a regression, I think a benchbisect: command should be available. But this should not be the default behavior. At least, that's what I think. This would make it a useful tool for me, don't know about others.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by tracing the existing releases command and how it currently triggers benchmarking and bisecting; the issue does not name files or tests. Separate the requested behaviors so releases tests only the requested releases, while regression investigation is available through a distinct benchbisect: command, then verify both command paths through the bot.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- cli, tooling
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100