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

ci: re-introduce benchmarks on PRs #3242

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 3, 2024
Merged

Conversation

maschad
Copy link
Member

@maschad maschad commented Oct 2, 2024

Summary

Post-merge of #3166 we should get more reliable benchmark runs given we have more iterations to reduce variance. The PR re-enables the benchmarks so that we can track those runs against local nodes.

Checklist

  • All changes are covered by tests (or not applicable)
  • All changes are documented (or not applicable)
  • I reviewed the entire PR myself (preferably, on GH UI)
  • I described all Breaking Changes (or there's none)

Copy link

vercel bot commented Oct 2, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
fuels-template ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Oct 3, 2024 1:59pm
ts-api-docs ❌ Failed (Inspect) Oct 3, 2024 1:59pm
ts-docs ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Oct 3, 2024 1:59pm

Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Oct 2, 2024

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #3242 will improve performances by ×22

Comparing mc/ci/re-enable-benchmarks (de90cf8) with master (e7c2c30)

Summary

⚡ 2 improvements

🆕 16 new benchmarks
⁉️ 19 dropped benchmarks

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Benchmarks breakdown

Benchmark master mc/ci/re-enable-benchmarks Change
⁉️ should successfully execute a contract deploy 102.3 ms N/A N/A
🆕 should successfully execute a contract deploy (x10 times) N/A 100.3 ms N/A
🆕 should successfully execute a contract deploy as blobs N/A 3.7 s N/A
⁉️ should successfully execute a contract mint 65.2 ms N/A N/A
🆕 should successfully execute a contract mint (x10 times) N/A 65.5 ms N/A
⁉️ should successfully execute a contract multi call 72.3 ms N/A N/A
🆕 should successfully execute a contract multi call (x10 times) N/A 71.4 ms N/A
⁉️ should successfully execute a contract read function 65.2 ms N/A N/A
🆕 should successfully execute a contract read function (x10 times) N/A 66.4 ms N/A
⁉️ should successfully write to a contract 65.9 ms N/A N/A
🆕 should successfully write to a contract (x10 times) N/A 66.3 ms N/A
⁉️ should successfully get transaction cost estimate for a batch transfer 48 ms N/A N/A
🆕 should successfully get transaction cost estimate for a batch transfer (x10 times) N/A 24.3 ms N/A
🆕 should successfully get transaction cost estimate for a mint (x10 times) N/A 21.6 ms N/A
⁉️ should successfully get transaction cost estimate for a single contract call 24.7 ms N/A N/A
🆕 should successfully get transaction cost estimate for a single contract call (x10 times) N/A 24.5 ms N/A
⁉️ should successfully get transaction cost estimate for a single transfer 26.5 ms N/A N/A
🆕 should successfully get transaction cost estimate for a single transfer (x10 times) N/A 18.2 ms N/A
⁉️ should successfully get transaction cost estimate for multi contract calls 36.3 ms N/A N/A
🆕 should successfully get transaction cost estimate for multi contract calls (x10 times) N/A 30.7 ms N/A
... ... ... ... ...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
chore Issue is a chore
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants