An attempt at supporting criterion benchmarks #229
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
briansmith
reviewed
Jun 21, 2024
| .rev() | ||
| .find(|line| line.contains("exited with status")); | ||
| // This will fail if criterion didn't run. | ||
| let _ = copy_recursively(criterion_path, "./target/criterion"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks pretty cool. I do wonder why the coping is only happening one way? It seems like we want to send the target/criterion directories contents to the device before running, then let it modify them, then copy them back to target/criterion.
Don't we need different criterion target directories per target or really per device? If I'm benchmarking 3 on 3 models of iPhones and 3 models of Apple Watches, I don't want those benchmark results to be mixed. Maybe I'm missing something though?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Possibly closes #81. I don't love this solution.