Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: invalid benchmark scripts #622

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 19, 2024
Merged

fix: invalid benchmark scripts #622

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 19, 2024

Conversation

gfyrag
Copy link
Contributor

@gfyrag gfyrag commented Dec 19, 2024

No description provided.

@gfyrag gfyrag requested a review from a team as a code owner December 19, 2024 18:19
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request involves modifications to multiple performance test script files, specifically any_bounded_to_any.js, any_unbounded_to_any.js, world_to_any.js, and world_to_bank.js. The primary change across these files is the transformation of the next() function's return type from a single object to an array containing an object. The returned object now includes a new nested script property that encapsulates the existing plain and vars properties, potentially providing a more structured approach to data organization.

Changes

File Change Summary
test/performance/scripts/any_bounded_to_any.js next() function now returns an array with an object containing action and data properties. data includes a new script object with plain and vars
test/performance/scripts/any_unbounded_to_any.js next() function modified to return an array with an object, introducing a script object within data
test/performance/scripts/world_to_any.js next() function return type changed to an array, with data now containing a script object
test/performance/scripts/world_to_bank.js next() function now returns an array with an object, restructuring data to include a script object

Poem

🐰 Hop, hop, through the code we go,
Wrapping data in a script's warm glow,
Arrays now hold our object's might,
Restructuring with rabbit delight!
Performance scripts dance anew tonight 🌟

Tip

CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command @coderabbitai generate docstrings to have CodeRabbit automatically generate docstrings for your pull request. We would love to hear your feedback on Discord.


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@gfyrag gfyrag enabled auto-merge December 19, 2024 18:20
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
test/performance/scripts/any_unbounded_to_any.js (1)

2-22: LGTM! Consider extracting UUID prefix strings

The script correctly handles dynamic source and destination accounts with proper variable declarations. However, the "src:" and "dst:" prefixes could be extracted as constants for better maintainability.

Consider this improvement:

+const SRC_PREFIX = "src:";
+const DST_PREFIX = "dst:";
+
 function next() {
     return [{
         action: 'CREATE_TRANSACTION',
         data: {
             script: {
                 plain: `vars {
                     account $source
                     account $destination
                 }
                 send [USD/2 100] (
                     source = $source allowing unbounded overdraft
                     destination = $destination
                 )`,
                 vars: {
-                    destination: "dst:" + uuid(),
-                    source: "src:" + uuid()
+                    destination: DST_PREFIX + uuid(),
+                    source: SRC_PREFIX + uuid()
                 }
             }
         }
     }]
 }
test/performance/scripts/any_bounded_to_any.js (1)

16-17: Consider more descriptive variable names for test accounts.

The current src: and dst: prefixes could be more descriptive for benchmark clarity.

-                        destination: "dst:" + uuid(),
-                        source: "src:" + uuid()
+                        destination: "test_destination:" + uuid(),
+                        source: "test_source:" + uuid()
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ea3c6b9 and 67df3bf.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)
  • test/performance/scripts/any_bounded_to_any.js (1 hunks)
  • test/performance/scripts/any_unbounded_to_any.js (1 hunks)
  • test/performance/scripts/world_to_any.js (1 hunks)
  • test/performance/scripts/world_to_bank.js (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
test/performance/scripts/world_to_bank.js (1)

2-15: LGTM! Verify benchmark runner compatibility

The changes look correct and maintain consistent structure with other benchmark scripts.

Let's verify the benchmark runner expects this new array return type:

test/performance/scripts/world_to_any.js (1)

2-20: LGTM! Structure and variable usage are correct

The script properly declares and uses the dynamic destination variable, maintaining consistency with the new array return type.

test/performance/scripts/any_bounded_to_any.js (1)

2-22: LGTM! Verify consistency across benchmark scripts.

The restructuring to return an array and nest script-related properties under a script object improves organization. This aligns with the PR objective of fixing invalid benchmark scripts.

Let's verify the consistency of this pattern across other benchmark scripts:

✅ Verification successful

Consistent structure verified across all benchmark scripts

The verification shows that all benchmark scripts in the test/performance/scripts/ directory follow the same pattern:

  • Return an array containing a single transaction object
  • Use consistent structure with action and nested script object under data
  • Follow similar variable declaration patterns
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if all benchmark scripts follow the same pattern
# Expected: All scripts should return arrays and use the script object structure

# Search for next() function implementations in benchmark scripts
ast-grep --pattern 'function next() {
  return $$$
}'

# Verify the script object structure is consistent
rg -g 'test/performance/scripts/*.js' -A 5 'script: {'

Length of output: 6371

@gfyrag gfyrag added this pull request to the merge queue Dec 19, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 1560f54 Dec 19, 2024
8 checks passed
@gfyrag gfyrag deleted the fix/benchmarks-scripts branch December 19, 2024 18:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants