In fact, I just reinvented https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/20392.
The patch on that ticket is pretty good, I'll try to review it again. -- Aymeric. On 7 juin 2014, at 10:12, Aymeric Augustin <aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > Hi Josh, > > Fixtures don't receive a lot of attention because they're hard to maintain > and generally inferior to object generators such as factory_boy. Still, it > would be good to optimize them. > > On 7 juin 2014, at 09:34, Josh Smeaton <josh.smea...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've been looking into the django testing infrastructure today to see if >> there was any particular reason why the test suite takes so long to run. > > You aren't the first one to notice the overhead of fixtures: > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9449. > > That ticket focuses on the cost of parsing fixtures, not loading them. > >> Note that the above isn't exactly right, but I think it demonstrates the >> problem. Each test_method is given its own TestCase (unnecessary python >> overhead) >> but more importantly, we're not using transactions to get back to the >> initial data. We're using transactions to get back to an empty database >> before loading fixtures again. > > I have a theory for this. Until Django 1.6, Django didn't have support for > savepoints. All you could do is a full rollback. > > So you had a choice between: > > - Load fixtures > - For each test method > - Start transaction > - Run test > - Roll back transaction > - Truncate tables (that's awfully slow when you have lots of models, like > Django's test suite does) > > or: > > - For each test method > - Start transaction > - Load fixtures > - Run test > - Roll back transaction > > The second solution is /probably/ faster for /some/ use cases, and certainly > for Django's own test suite. > > It may also explain why Django rewraps each method in a test case, but I'm > not sure about that part. > > Now, if the test suite is running on a database that supports savepoints > (there's a database feature providing this information) you could do: > > - Start transaction > - Load fixtures > - For each test method > - Create savepoint > - Run test > - Roll back to savepoint > - Roll back transaction > >> I know lots of people have invested lots of time on the test suite, >> especially when it comes to run time. I doubt that I'm raising anything new >> for the people who have come before. But my question is why? Is there a >> reason that each test method has to have its own TestCase? Is there a reason >> that each test method has to load its own fixtures again and again, or is >> that just a symptom of how each test_method is collected by the test suite? > > I don't have all the answers, but hopefully the above sheds some light on the > underlying issues. > >> There are many kinds of tests that deal with the ORM that should be able to >> rely on fixtures being loaded once for the entire TestCase, and relying on >> transactions to get back to initial data. Is this theoretically possible, or >> am I missing something? I figure we could eliminate something like 1/3rd of >> all queries. > > That would be pretty cool. > > If you work on a patch, please keep multiple databases in mind -- I don't > know how they're handled transaction-wise. > > -- > Aymeric. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/B5946B6B-76D7-40AB-AB83-80360B7B7A67%40polytechnique.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
