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

CoreFX workflow docs #314

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Feb 21, 2019
Merged

CoreFX workflow docs #314

merged 7 commits into from
Feb 21, 2019

Conversation

adamsitnik
Copy link
Member

@stephentoub @danmosemsft @ahsonkhan this is my proposal for the new official CoreFX benchmarking workflow using performance repo.

The easiest way to view it is most probably via:
https://github.com/adamsitnik/performance/blob/corefxDocs/docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md

PTAL ;)

C:\Projects\corefx\src\System.Text.RegularExpressions\src> dotnet msbuild /p:ConfigurationGroup=Release
```

## Preventing Regressions
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@danmosemsft this is something new, I would like it to become a part of our perf culture (thinking of perf up-front and using tools to validate that)


**It's very important to validate the reported version numbers** to make sure that you are running the benchmarks using the versions you think that you are using.

## Benchmarking new API
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@stephentoub @ahsonkhan you both asked for that. I have tested that very carefully (I added new library to CoreFX, new type, new method to existing type) and everything works fine

Copy link
Member

@stephentoub stephentoub left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Very nice write-up and functionality. Thanks.

@adamsitnik
Copy link
Member Author

@MarcoRossignoli @benaadams could you also please take a look? Your opinion is very important to me.

Copy link
Member

@ahsonkhan ahsonkhan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Otherwise, LGTM. Thanks for the write-up.

docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/benchmarking-workflow-corefx.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great start!
Comparer tool is fundamental to me, I think that will grow up quickly.

@adamsitnik
Copy link
Member Author

@stephentoub @ahsonkhan @MarcoRossignoli big thanks for the reviews! I have fixed all issues.

@danmosemsft as soon as you provide your review and I fix the issues you find, we can merge it ;)

@danmoseley
Copy link
Member

I edited PR directly as I cannot make a PR against this PR in your fork.. feel free to revert. LGTM

@adamsitnik adamsitnik merged commit 5f6ea2f into dotnet:master Feb 21, 2019
@adamsitnik adamsitnik deleted the corefxDocs branch February 21, 2019 20:21
@adamsitnik
Copy link
Member Author

@danmosemsft I really like your changes, thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants