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

benchmark: reformat code for clarity #9790

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented Nov 24, 2016

Checklist
  • make -j8 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test nosign (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

benchmark

Description of change

Some of the benchmark code can be a little dense. Not very hard to read
but perhaps harder than it needs to be.

These changes (many of them whitespace-only) hopefully
improve readability.

There are also a few cases of assert.equal() that are changed to assert.strictEqual().

@Trott Trott added the benchmark Issues and PRs related to the benchmark subsystem. label Nov 24, 2016
@Trott Trott force-pushed the benchmark-clarity branch from c3c7fdc to ce7d1c4 Compare November 24, 2016 22:16
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Nov 27, 2016

Some of the benchmark code can be a little dense. Not *very* hard to
read but perhaps harder than it needs to be.

These changes (many of them whitespace-only) hopefully improve
readability.

There are also a few cases of `assert.equal()` that are changed to
`assert.strictEqual()`.
@Trott Trott force-pushed the benchmark-clarity branch from ce7d1c4 to 28ad5ec Compare November 27, 2016 18:40
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Nov 27, 2016

Trott added a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2016
Some of the benchmark code can be a little dense. Not *very* hard to
read but perhaps harder than it needs to be.

These changes (many of them whitespace-only) hopefully improve
readability.

There are also a few cases of `assert.equal()` that are changed to
`assert.strictEqual()`.

PR-URL: nodejs#9790
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Nov 28, 2016

Landed in 566a151

@Trott Trott closed this Nov 28, 2016
addaleax pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2016
Some of the benchmark code can be a little dense. Not *very* hard to
read but perhaps harder than it needs to be.

These changes (many of them whitespace-only) hopefully improve
readability.

There are also a few cases of `assert.equal()` that are changed to
`assert.strictEqual()`.

PR-URL: #9790
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2016
2 tasks
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2016
Some of the benchmark code can be a little dense. Not *very* hard to
read but perhaps harder than it needs to be.

These changes (many of them whitespace-only) hopefully improve
readability.

There are also a few cases of `assert.equal()` that are changed to
`assert.strictEqual()`.

PR-URL: #9790
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 21, 2016
Some of the benchmark code can be a little dense. Not *very* hard to
read but perhaps harder than it needs to be.

These changes (many of them whitespace-only) hopefully improve
readability.

There are also a few cases of `assert.equal()` that are changed to
`assert.strictEqual()`.

PR-URL: #9790
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <targos@protonmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Dec 21, 2016
@Trott Trott deleted the benchmark-clarity branch January 13, 2022 22:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
benchmark Issues and PRs related to the benchmark subsystem.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants