-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
Why does the Web Frameworks Benchmark report HTTP Errors for Fastify? #1073
Comments
Have you asked whoever created and maintains that suite? |
I haven't. Since the benchmark seems quite popular, I hoped that maybe it's a known topic for the Fastify community. |
I can say that I haven't ever seen it before. |
I'm not sure what they are doing, but they seem to be benchmarking the error path and not the actual request flow. |
Thanks @mcollina! Just for reference - I've also opened an issue on the benchmark project, following @jsumners suggestion: the-benchmarker/web-frameworks#8038. |
Thanks @tomekt-bolt for this report. The results will be updated on monday with the fix made by @mcollina |
Closing as the issue resolved. |
You have already researched for similar issues?
It's not uncommon that somebody already opened an issue or in best case it's already fixed but not merged. That's the reason why you should search at first before submitting a new one.
What are you trying to achieve, or the steps to reproduce?
I'm considering migrating a project to Fastify. I've noticed that on the Web Frameworks Benchmark page, Fastify is indicated to return HTTP Errors during the benchmark.
Is there a known reason for this? Is this related to some actual limitations of Fastify under high load, or is the benchmark somehow irrelevant?
What was the result you received?
Benchmark indicated HTTP Errors for Fastify
What did you expect?
I expected no HTTP Errors for Fastify
Context
Please read this entire template before posting any issue. If you ignore these instructions
and post an issue here that does not follow the instructions, your issue might be closed,
locked, and assigned the
missing discussion
label.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: