Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Oct 12 17:28
    Snaipe commented #304
  • Oct 12 12:13
    Snaipe commented #304
  • Oct 12 11:43
    Snaipe commented #305
  • Oct 12 00:25
    ntuDerekWang opened #305
  • Oct 09 10:43

    Snaipe on master

    (compare)

  • Oct 09 10:41

    Snaipe on bleeding

    Struct pointer references use -… (compare)

  • Oct 03 16:05
    vincentdupaquis commented #304
  • Oct 02 15:20
    vincentdupaquis commented #304
  • Oct 02 15:19
    Snaipe commented #304
  • Oct 02 14:58
    vincentdupaquis commented #304
  • Oct 02 14:56
    Snaipe commented #304
  • Oct 02 14:28
    vincentdupaquis commented #304
  • Oct 02 13:45
    vincentdupaquis commented #304
  • Oct 02 13:37
    vincentdupaquis commented #304
  • Oct 02 12:19
    Snaipe commented #304
  • Oct 02 10:52
    vincentdupaquis commented #304
  • Oct 02 10:49
    vincentdupaquis opened #304
  • Sep 26 21:38
    Snaipe commented #287
  • Sep 26 08:42
    am11 commented #287
  • Sep 25 14:48
    Snaipe commented #303
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
there is definitely a "time" attribute
For both "testsuite" and "test" it seems
Dominik
@kaidowei
should I open an issue or create a pullrequest
or do you want to fix it
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
I'm currently working on the fork patch for nanomsg, so go ahead if you want to fix it
just note that the spec says that the time is an integer representing the number of seconds
so you'll need to round to the nearest integer
Dominik
@kaidowei
which (in almost all cases) makes no sense :(
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
yeah, it's a shame
I think the idea was to have more detail in the "timestamp" field
but currently "timestamp" is not an information that is gathered in the stats
actually nevermind, there's no "timestamp_end", so "timestamp" in itself is useless to calculate the time spent
and in any case a timestamp is in seconds
so yeah, it's too bad.
Dominik
@kaidowei
meaning 0.001 is 1ms
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
Oh, then that's perfect
I don't know why I remember it being an integer
I must have mixed it up with something else
so then round up to the millisecond
in any case it's the only sane measurement accross platforms, as some does not give precision up to nanoseconds
Dominik
@kaidowei
elapsed_time is already in ms?
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
seconds
Dominik
@kaidowei
ah so, I don't have to do anything, cool
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
yep
Dominik
@kaidowei
what does it contain, if the test crashed?
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
0
because nothing gets reported after the crash
I ought to fix this someday
Dominik
@kaidowei
the time for a suite... do I have to calc that or is there already a function somewhere?
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
no, you have to sum all the elapsed_times
Dominik
@kaidowei
best place for that?
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
Dominik
@kaidowei
yeah... are there unittests for the xml io?
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
there are no unit tests, but a bunch of system tests to validate the output in test/cram
if you want to regenerate the new tests outputs, simply call make cram_tests CRAM=-i
Dominik
@kaidowei
pullrequest to master or bleeding?
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
bleeding
I'll roll this out for 2.3.0
Dominik
@kaidowei
are you currently on bleeding?
can you check for me, if the time is accounted correctly?
I have a sleep in my test and the time is still 0.00
with 2.2.1 it works
Franklin Mathieu
@Snaipe
mmh, right. Times aren't reported on bleeding for some reason
let me investigate
oh, right, I remember why
that's because the protocol started working with timestamps rather than elapsed times
and currently timestamps aren't implemented
I ought to make an issue so I don't forget
Dominik
@kaidowei
can you elaborate on the cram tests? can't get them to run