chore: update the performance tests to use @chainsafe/benchmark #7373
+938
−906
Conversation
This file contains 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
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## unstable #7373 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 48.62% 50.22% +1.60%
============================================
Files 603 602 -1
Lines 40516 40407 -109
Branches 2071 2206 +135
============================================
+ Hits 19700 20294 +594
+ Misses 20778 20073 -705
- Partials 38 40 +2 |
nazarhussain
force-pushed
the
nh/benchmark-update
branch
from
c66f2f3 to
bcdad5f
Compare
nazarhussain
commented
Jan 20, 2025
Comment on lines
+62
to
+65
|
|
||
| // TODO: Diagnose why this benchmark failing after upgrade | ||
| // https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/issues/7380 | ||
| bench.skip({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only this benchmark is failing, need to troubleshoot in particular later on.
matthewkeil
reviewed
Jan 21, 2025
| @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ describe("validate gossip attestation", () => { | |||
| state, | |||
| bitIndex: i, | |||
| }); | |||
| expect(subnet).to.be.equal(subnet0); | |||
| assert.deepEqual(subnet, subnet0); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems weird that we need to use assert here...
This reverts commit 8a0e51d.
|
It would be good to figure out #7380 before merging this |
|
there is no benchmark report / comment on this PR, this is no longer supported or just broken? |
Already looking into it. |
Performance Report✔️ no performance regression detected Full benchmark results
|
wemeetagain
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2025
nflaig
reviewed
Jan 30, 2025
|
|
||
| // TODO: Diagnose why this benchmark failing after upgrade | ||
| // https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/issues/7380 | ||
| bench.skip({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would be good to see this addressed before merging
| minRuns: 10 | ||
| # Default is set to 0.005, which is too low considering the benchmark setup we have | ||
| # Changing it to 0.05 which is 5/100, so 5% difference of moving average among run times | ||
| convergeFactor: 0.075 # 7.5 / 100 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how did you come up with this number? we should probably test if this is still low enough to catch actual regressions
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Motivation
Use the
@chainsafe/benchmarkfork for our performance tests. This will enable to run these tests on multiple JS runtimes.Description
Steps to test or reproduce