-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 118
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
Make behavior of skip_after more consistent. #224
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #224 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.00% 87.03% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 17 17
Lines 2378 2383 +5
==========================================
+ Hits 2069 2074 +5
Misses 309 309
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just two minor nits. Thanks!
Specifically, omits process name as a root frame if `skip_after` condition was trigerred. Also, I added "skip-after" flag to collapse-perf.rs in order to actually be able to use and test this flag on real stack traces.
@jonhoo addressed your comments. Please advise if the comment above is not clear. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
Released in 0.10.9 🎉 |
Specifically, omits process name as a root frame if
skip_after
condition was trigerred.Also, I added "skip-after" flag to collapse-perf.rs in order to actually be able to use
and test this flag on real stack traces.