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

update test-performance use setImmediate instead of setTimeout #22093

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
66 changes: 29 additions & 37 deletions test/sequential/test-performance.js
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,8 +4,9 @@ const common = require('../common');
const assert = require('assert');
const { performance } = require('perf_hooks');

if (!common.isMainThread)
if (!common.isMainThread) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unrelated change.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm just trying to improve the code a little bit sir.

common.skip('bootstrapping workers works differently');
}

assert(performance);
assert(performance.nodeTiming);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -56,21 +57,7 @@ assert(inited < 20000);
assert.strictEqual(performance.nodeTiming.name, 'node');
assert.strictEqual(performance.nodeTiming.entryType, 'node');

function checkNodeTiming(props) {
for (const prop of Object.keys(props)) {
if (props[prop].around !== undefined) {
assert.strictEqual(typeof performance.nodeTiming[prop], 'number');
const delta = performance.nodeTiming[prop] - props[prop].around;
assert(Math.abs(delta) < 1000);
} else {
assert.strictEqual(performance.nodeTiming[prop], props[prop],
`mismatch for performance property ${prop}: ` +
`${performance.nodeTiming[prop]} vs ${props[prop]}`);
}
}
}

checkNodeTiming({
const timingParams = {
name: 'node',
entryType: 'node',
startTime: 0,
Expand All @@ -81,34 +68,39 @@ checkNodeTiming({
environment: { around: 0 },
loopStart: -1,
loopExit: -1
});
};

function checkNodeTiming(props) {
Object.keys(props).forEach((prop) => {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why this change? This isn't faster or better.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No is not, but if you are invoking a chain-able method for an array, might as well chain and iterate no?

const param = props[prop];
const performanceParam = performance.nodeTiming[prop];

if (param.hasOwnProperty('around')) {
assert.strictEqual(typeof performanceParam, 'number');
const delta = performanceParam - param.around;
assert(Math.abs(delta) < 1000);
} else {
assert.strictEqual(performanceParam, param,
`mismatch for performance property ${prop}: ` +
`${performanceParam} vs ${param}`);
}
});
}

setTimeout(() => {
checkNodeTiming({
name: 'node',
entryType: 'node',
startTime: 0,
duration: { around: performance.now() },
nodeStart: { around: 0 },
v8Start: { around: 0 },
bootstrapComplete: { around: inited },
environment: { around: 0 },
checkNodeTiming(timingParams);

setImmediate(() => {
const params = Object.assign({}, timingParams, {
loopStart: { around: inited },
loopExit: -1
});
}, 2000);
checkNodeTiming(params);
});

process.on('exit', () => {
checkNodeTiming({
name: 'node',
entryType: 'node',
startTime: 0,
duration: { around: performance.now() },
nodeStart: { around: 0 },
v8Start: { around: 0 },
bootstrapComplete: { around: inited },
environment: { around: 0 },
const params = Object.assign({}, timingParams, {
loopStart: { around: inited },
loopExit: { around: performance.now() }
});
checkNodeTiming(params);
});