Skip to content

[NRBF] skip the most time-consuming test case for non-Release builds to avoid timeouts for checked builds #110550

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
jkotas merged 5 commits into from
Dec 12, 2024
Merged

[NRBF] skip the most time-consuming test case for non-Release builds to avoid timeouts for checked builds #110550

Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
46258b4
don't test for large inputs twice
adamsitnik Dec 9, 2024
bc259f6
skip the most time-consuming test case for non-Release builds
adamsitnik Dec 9, 2024
424904b
Merge branch 'main' into nrbfTimeouts
adamsitnik Dec 10, 2024
da330c2
Merge branch 'main' into nrbfTimeouts
adamsitnik Dec 10, 2024
45c6a6a
apply suggestion from the code review
adamsitnik Dec 11, 2024
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
9 changes: 7 additions & 2 deletions src/libraries/System.Formats.Nrbf/tests/ArraySinglePrimitiveRecordTests.cs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -20,10 +20,15 @@ public NonSeekableStream(byte[] buffer) : base(buffer) { }

public static IEnumerable<object[]> GetCanReadArrayOfAnySizeArgs()
{
foreach (int size in new[] { 1, 127, 128, 512_001, 512_001 })
foreach (int size in new[] { 1, 127, 128, 512_001 })
Copy link
Member

@jkotas jkotas Dec 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is 512_001 particularly interesting value to test for some reason?

Would it be simpler to just change 512_001 to something smaller, like 20_001?

Copy link
Member Author

@adamsitnik adamsitnik Dec 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nothing in particular, I am going to apply your suggestion.

{
yield return new object[] { size, true };
yield return new object[] { size, false };

// It's the most time-consuming test case, skip it for the non-Release builds.
if (size != 512_001 || PlatformDetection.IsReleaseRuntime)
{
yield return new object[] { size, false };
}
}
}

Expand Down
Loading