-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
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
Pool the buffer and encoder used for generic JSON reflection #602
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #602 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 97.47% 97.29% -0.18%
==========================================
Files 39 39
Lines 2017 2035 +18
==========================================
+ Hits 1966 1980 +14
- Misses 43 47 +4
Partials 8 8
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
ae8d2a1
to
930a571
Compare
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.
This is awesome - great catch, Josh. One question about adding more mostly-duplicate tests. (Once again, my grand plan to split the zap
and zapcore
packages turns out to have been a bad idea.)
buf.Free() | ||
}) | ||
} | ||
} |
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.
Similar tests already exist in the top-level zap package; would we be better off changing the Makefile to pass coverpkg=all
instead of adding a new test suite?
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.
For future reviewers: this turned into a yak shave, will fix it later.
13daf8a
to
9affa89
Compare
Hmm, that |
9affa89
to
63a5674
Compare
…ode coverage numbers
63a5674
to
93e77b2
Compare
…#602) Pool buffers and encoders to make JSON reflection less expensive.
No description provided.