ci: Display performance measurement results as custom metrics #3491
Conversation
| comment: | ||
| if: is_pull_request |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Delete this line if you do not need it to appear as a comment in every Pull Request.
You can also check the summary only.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do you think we should enable or disable it? It's cool that the performance measuring result is posted to PR as a comment, but currently, it is only a TypeScript type performance. Many PRs are not related to the type definition, so it may not be important for them.
CC: @m-shaka
There was a problem hiding this comment.
People often ignore such an automated comment, so it may not be a problem
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We believe that the comment display itself should always be displayed when measuring performance. Displaying comments makes people aware of performance.
Many PRs are not related to the type definition, so it may not be important for them.
I thought that the essential answer to this question is that we should consider not nudging the perf-measures-type-check-on-pr Job for PRs that do not affect TypeScript type performance.
It is possible to specify a path base for the execution condition of a GHA job, but is the following the only files that affect TypeScript type performance?
- src/client/*.ts
- perf-measures/**/*
If the source itself that measures performance is changed, it is also necessary to run the job
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@m-shaka @k2tzumi Thank you for the comment!
We believe that the comment display itself should always be displayed when measuring performance. Displaying comments makes people aware of performance.
I see!
It is possible to specify a path base for the execution condition of a GHA job, but is the following the only files that affect TypeScript type performance?
We have to add the following files that affect application type definitions:
src/types.tssrc/hono-base.tssrc/request.tssrc/context.tssrc/validator/validator.ts- it can be used in the RPC-mode.
What do you think of this?
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3491 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.58% 95.58%
=======================================
Files 155 155
Lines 9357 9357
Branches 2749 2733 -16
=======================================
Hits 8944 8944
Misses 413 413 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
k2tzumi
force-pushed
the
octocov-custom-metrix
branch
from
6b36a6c
to
9d9c15a
Compare
The author should do the following, if applicable
bun run format:fix && bun run lint:fixto format the codeWhat's this all about?
This will be an improvement in type checking performance monitoring added by the following Pull Request.
#3406
In conjunction with octocov, type checking performance will be displayed as Pull Request comments and CI summary as follows
Pull Request comments
CI summary
