-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
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
Add benchmark GHA #79
Conversation
|
||
for i in 2:6 | ||
n = 10^i | ||
x = rand(MersenneTwister(42), n) |
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.
Would it be worth using StableRNGs here?
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.
I thought about it and probably not -- we don't care about the precise values and this is always run within the same Julia version for each new PR
Co-authored-by: Alex Arslan <ararslan@comcast.net>
Codecov ReportPatch coverage has no change and project coverage change:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #79 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.56% 91.98% +1.41%
==========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 212 212
==========================================
+ Hits 192 195 +3
+ Misses 20 17 -3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
merging -- it runs as expected on the current revision and fails to resolve the environment (which did not exist) on the older revision |
Note that the action will necessarily fail until it's been merged because it uses
origin/HEAD
as the reference point and there are no benchmarks there.