Some of these tests are just comparing two different ways of doing things against each other (testAVersusBPerformance tests). These ones wouldn't make sense as proper performance tests. They could probably be removed, although they might sometimes come in handy for reference. Some of them look like micro-benchmarks that wouldn't be helpful as proper performance tests, but some could probably could be turned into proper performance tests with baselines, etc. In particular benchmarks of slicer, resolver, and reconciler performance would be really useful to guard against regressions.
John On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Watson <[email protected]> wrote: > While monitoring a recent p2 test failure in the Indigo SR1 (3.7.1) build > I noticed a test failing that had "Performance" in the name. I found the > following tests that also have "Performance" in the name: > > testParserPerformanc > testMatchQueryVersusExpressionPerformance > testMatchQueryVersusIndexedExpressionPerformance > testMatchQueryVersusIndexedExpressionPerformance2 > testMatchQueryVersusMatchIteratorPerformance > testCapabilityQueryPerformance > testIUPropertyQueryPerformance > testSlicerPerformance > testPermissiveSlicerPerformance > > So that made me wonder, are these really performance tests? Should they be > run during the performance test bucket so that their stats can be tracked > against previous releases to see if we have improved or regressed > performance of these tests? > > > Tom > > > _______________________________________________ > p2-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev > >
_______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
