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

Allow constant zipped parameter in campaign incremental #110

Open
msimonin opened this issue Apr 8, 2018 · 0 comments
Open

Allow constant zipped parameter in campaign incremental #110

msimonin opened this issue Apr 8, 2018 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@msimonin
Copy link
Owner

msimonin commented Apr 8, 2018

Currently if one specifies:

test_case_1:
  nbr_clients: [1, 2, 3]
  nbr_servers: [1, 1, 1]

We expect the incremental campaign to start (1, 1) then (1, 0) then (1, 0) clients and servers.
But I observed that the above results in starting (1, 1) then (1, 1) then (1, 1) clients and servers.

We want to support constant parameters in the zipped parameters.


The function generate_current_values (

def get_current_values(params, current, key):
)
and the line :
previous_clients, current_clients = get_current_values(parameters, current_parameters, 'nbr_clients')
previous_servers, current_servers = get_current_values(parameters, current_parameters, 'nbr_servers')

causes the above behaviour.

Indeed parameters are treated separately leading the second line to always have previous_servers=0 and current_servers=0. This is due to the plist.index to return the first index of the occurence in a list.

@msimonin msimonin self-assigned this Apr 8, 2018
msimonin added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 9, 2018
Note: Currently, some, hum,  well chosen, parameters can be constant over the
zipped parameters. In the future we may want to extend that to any zipped
parameters.

Fix #110
msimonin added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 12, 2018
```
    nbr_clients: [1, 1, 1]
    nbr_servers: [1, 1, 1]
    nbr_calls: [100, 50, 25]
    pause: [0.1, 0.2, 0.3]
```

nbr_calls and pause weren't taken into account in the previous iteration
calculation. The framework was misbehaving because, in the above, one new
client and server were started for each iteration.

This addresses #110
@msimonin msimonin reopened this Jun 12, 2018
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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant