Front page | perl.qa |
Postings from November 2011
>________________________________ > From: Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com> > >On 2011.11.21 4:07 AM, David Cantrell wrote: >> But then how often does one need to 'use Test::More'? Not enough to >> bother optimising it, I'd say. > >In every single .t file that gets run by just about everybody. > >By being THE testing framework, it places an upper bound on how fast anyone's >tests can be. 10 .t files per second, no faster. That sucks. > > >> To take a real-world example, it occurs 182 times in our test suite at >> work, a test suite that takes almost 2 hours to run in full. Those >> extra 182 * 0.07 == 13 seconds are of absolutely no importance at all. > >I run tests a lot while developing. I can see they're slower without even >benchmarking it. You wouldn't think you'd notice 70 ms, but you do. > >I don't want to give anyone an excuse to not run tests often or not upgrade. I have to agree with this. Test performance is an issue that people constantly hit. And aside from Test::Class/Test::Aggregate style solutions (I see to recall someone put out an alternative to Test::Aggregate?), individual tests in separate processes is the norm. For larger, "enterprisey" type systems, my experience shows that they generally have enough other issues that a tiny hit on Test::More won't matter, but when you add up all the tiny hits, it's death by a thousand cuts. Dave, you weren't on the PIPs team when I optimized their test suite, but it was those "thousand cuts" that I stripped away one by one to get an hour long test suite running in less than 15 minutes. So yeah, this is a very important issue. If performance isn't dealt with, it's going to be a constant sore spot. And Schwern: thanks for all of your good work in this area! Cheers, Ovid -- Live and work overseas - http://overseas-exile.blogspot.com/ Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Tech blog - http://blogs.perl.org/users/ovid/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl/Thread Previous | Thread Next