Problem: configs are baked in testground #1561
Conversation
mmsqe
requested review from
JayT106 and
calvinaco
and removed request for
a team
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a new command-line argument, Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant CLI
participant Main
participant LoadGenerator
participant Params
User->>CLI: Run command with --num_max_workers
CLI->>Main: Pass num_max_workers
Main->>Params: Retrieve num_max_workers
Main->>LoadGenerator: Call generate_load with num_max_workers
LoadGenerator->>LoadGenerator: Execute load generation with specified workers
Possibly related PRs
Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Files selected for processing (1)
Additional context usedRuff
Additional comments not posted (4)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (6)
- testground/README.md (1 hunks)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/main.py (1 hunks)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/params.py (1 hunks)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/sendtx.py (1 hunks)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py (3 hunks)
- testground/benchmark/compositions/local.toml (1 hunks)
Additional context used
LanguageTool
testground/README.md
[style] ~95-~95: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ...ccounts for each full node. *num_txsis the number of test transactions to be s...(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
[style] ~96-~96: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
Context: ... each test account. *num_max_workersis the number of worker threads to use for...(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE)
Additional comments not posted (5)
testground/benchmark/compositions/local.toml (1)
19-20: LGTM!The addition of the
num_max_workersparameter is correctly implemented and provides flexibility for configuring the concurrency level.testground/benchmark/benchmark/main.py (1)
39-41: LGTM!The modification correctly passes the
num_max_workersparameter to thegenerate_loadfunction, enhancing the load generation process.testground/benchmark/benchmark/sendtx.py (1)
80-85: LGTM!The modification correctly enhances the flexibility of the
generate_loadfunction by allowing the caller to specify the maximum number of workers.testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py (2)
Line range hint
50-95: LGTM! Verify the default value.The addition of the
num_max_workersparameter is correctly implemented. Ensure that the default value of 3000 is appropriate for your use case.
157-162: LGTM! Verify thegenerate_loadfunction.The addition of the
num_max_workersparameter is correctly implemented. Ensure that thegenerate_loadfunction handles the parameter correctly.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1561 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 36.12% 15.24% -20.89%
===========================================
Files 97 67 -30
Lines 7725 4874 -2851
===========================================
- Hits 2791 743 -2048
+ Misses 4585 4037 -548
+ Partials 349 94 -255 |
what is the meaning of the fields? |
|
what's the point of setting thread pool size larger than accounts, there's only one task for each account. |
mmsqe
force-pushed
the
num_max_workers
branch
from
2f23334
to
5d4aedf
Compare
mmsqe
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (1)
testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py (1)
317-327: Add test cases fortruncate_fractional_secondsfunction.The
truncate_fractional_secondsfunction is used in timestamp processing but lacks test cases to verify its correctness. It is crucial to add test cases covering various timestamp formats and edge cases to ensure the function's reliability and accuracy in time-based operations.
- Consider adding test cases for different timestamp formats and edge cases.
Analysis chain
Approve the addition of
truncate_fractional_secondsfunction.The
truncate_fractional_secondsfunction has been correctly implemented to handle timestamp formatting by truncating fractional seconds. This addition enhances the consistency of timestamp handling across the system.Verify that the
truncate_fractional_secondsfunction correctly handles various timestamp formats and does not introduce errors in timestamp processing.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the correctness and impact of the `truncate_fractional_seconds` function on timestamp processing. # Test: Search for the function usage and test cases. Expect: Correct handling of various timestamp formats. rg --type py 'truncate_fractional_seconds' -A 10Length of output: 1704
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for test cases or additional usage of the `truncate_fractional_seconds` function in the codebase. # Search for test cases in Python test files. rg --type py 'truncate_fractional_seconds' --glob '*test*.py' -A 10 # Search for additional usage of the function in the codebase. rg --type py 'truncate_fractional_seconds' -A 10Length of output: 1772
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/peer.py (2 hunks)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py (6 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (4)
testground/benchmark/benchmark/peer.py (1)
Line range hint
119-139: Approve the addition ofblock_stm_workersparameter.The changes to the
patch_configsfunction correctly introduce theblock_stm_workersparameter and use it to set the"evm.block-stm-workers"configuration. This aligns with the PR's objectives to manage concurrency.Ensure that the
"evm.block-stm-workers"configuration key is supported and correctly utilized across the system. Consider running integration tests to verify its impact on the blockchain's performance and stability.testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py (3)
Line range hint
52-95: Approve the addition ofblock_stm_workersparameter togenfunction.The
genfunction has been correctly updated to include theblock_stm_workersparameter, enhancing its configurability for concurrency management. This parameter is appropriately passed topatch_configs_local.Verify that the
block_stm_workersparameter is handled correctly inpatch_configs_localand that it effectively influences the system's concurrency management.Verification successful
Verification Successful:
block_stm_workersParameter Handling inpatch_configs_localThe
block_stm_workersparameter is correctly passed and utilized within thepatch_configs_localfunction, specifically in the call topatch_configs. This confirms its role in managing concurrency settings as intended.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the handling of the `block_stm_workers` parameter in `patch_configs_local`. # Test: Search for the function definition and usage. Expect: Correct handling of the parameter. rg --type py 'patch_configs_local' -A 10Length of output: 2281
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the `block_stm_workers` parameter within the `patch_configs_local` function. # Test: Search for the usage of `block_stm_workers` within the function body. rg --type py 'def patch_configs_local' -A 50 | rg 'block_stm_workers'Length of output: 262
330-346: Approve the addition ofcalculate_tpsfunction.The
calculate_tpsfunction has been correctly implemented to calculate transactions per second based on block timestamps. This addition enhances the module's ability to analyze transaction performance metrics.Verify that the
calculate_tpsfunction correctly calculates TPS and handles edge cases such as zero time difference or invalid timestamps.
287-292: Approve the modification ofpatch_configs_localto includeblock_stm_workers.The
patch_configs_localfunction has been correctly updated to include theblock_stm_workersparameter, ensuring that the concurrency management setting is propagated to thepatch_configsfunction.Verify that the
block_stm_workersparameter is correctly utilized in thepatch_configsfunction and that it effectively influences the system's concurrency management.Verification successful
The
block_stm_workersparameter is correctly utilized in thepatch_configsfunction.The parameter is used to set the
"evm.block-stm-workers"configuration in theapp.tomlfile, ensuring that the concurrency management setting is effectively applied.
- Location:
testground/benchmark/benchmark/peer.pyin thepatch_configsfunction.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the propagation and usage of the `block_stm_workers` parameter in the `patch_configs` function. # Test: Search for the function definition and usage. Expect: Correct handling of the parameter. rg --type py 'patch_configs' -A 10Length of output: 5372
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the `block_stm_workers` parameter within the `patch_configs` function. # Test: Search for the usage of `block_stm_workers` in the `patch_configs` function. rg --type py 'block_stm_workers' -A 10 -B 10 testground/benchmark/benchmark/peer.pyLength of output: 1359
allow overwrite config and app patch
mmsqe
force-pushed
the
num_max_workers
branch
from
5d4aedf
to
9eb91ed
Compare
mmsqe
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/peer.py (1 hunks)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py (5 hunks)
Additional context used
Ruff
testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py
51-58: Do not use mutable data structures for argument defaults
Replace with
None; initialize within function(B006)
59-68: Do not use mutable data structures for argument defaults
Replace with
None; initialize within function(B006)
Additional comments not posted (1)
testground/benchmark/benchmark/peer.py (1)
119-123: LGTM!The changes to the
patch_configsfunction look good. The modifications enhance the flexibility and customizability of the configuration management process by:
- Accepting
config_patchandapp_patchas parameters, allowing users to pass in their own configurations.- Removing the hardcoded configuration dictionaries, aligning with the goal of making the configuration more dynamic.
- Retaining the line that sets
"p2p.persistent_peers"based on thepeersargument, ensuring that this specific configuration is still being updated correctly.The changes are consistent with the AI-generated summary and do not introduce any apparent issues or code smells.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py (5 hunks)
Additional context used
Ruff
testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py
51-51: Do not use mutable data structures for argument defaults
Replace with
None; initialize within function(B006)
52-52: Do not use mutable data structures for argument defaults
Replace with
None; initialize within function(B006)
Additional comments not posted (5)
testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py (5)
51-73: LGTM, the changes to introduceconfig_patchandapp_patchparameters are approved.The modifications to the
genfunction that introduce theconfig_patchandapp_patchparameters are approved. These changes enhance the configurability and maintainability of the code by allowing users to specify detailed configuration options.Tools
Ruff
51-51: Do not use mutable data structures for argument defaults
Replace with
None; initialize within function(B006)
52-52: Do not use mutable data structures for argument defaults
Replace with
None; initialize within function(B006)
51-73: The past review comment regarding the mutable default arguments issue is still valid and applicable to the current code segment. Please refer to the previous comment for the detailed explanation and proposed fix.Tools
Ruff
51-51: Do not use mutable data structures for argument defaults
Replace with
None; initialize within function(B006)
52-52: Do not use mutable data structures for argument defaults
Replace with
None; initialize within function(B006)
54-73: LGTM!The changes to introduce
default_config_patchanddefault_app_patchconstants for defining the default configuration patches are approved. This improves the readability and maintainability of the code.The use of the spread operator to merge the default patches with the user-provided
config_patchandapp_patchis also correct and gives precedence to the user-provided values.
Line range hint
97-107: LGTM!The changes to pass the updated
config_patchandapp_patcharguments to thepatch_configs_localfunction are approved. This change is consistent with the modifications made to thegenfunction to introduce theconfig_patchandapp_patchparameters.
297-303: LGTM!The changes to the
patch_configs_localfunction to accept theconfig_patchandapp_patcharguments and pass them to thepatch_configsfunction are approved. These changes are consistent with the modifications made to thegenfunction and ensure that the configuration patches are applied properly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/peer.py (2 hunks)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py (4 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- testground/benchmark/benchmark/peer.py
Additional comments not posted (3)
testground/benchmark/benchmark/stateless.py (3)
76-76: LGTM!The changes to pass the
config_patchandapp_patcharguments to thepatch_configs_localfunction are consistent with its signature and look good to me.Also applies to: 85-86
276-277: LGTM!The addition of
config_patchandapp_patchparameters to thepatch_configs_localfunction enhances its configurability and allows for more granular control over the configuration settings. These changes look good to me.
282-282: LGTM!The change to pass the
config_patchandapp_patcharguments to thepatch_configsfunction is consistent with its updated signature and looks good to me.
5c507d5
👮🏻👮🏻👮🏻 !!!! REFERENCE THE PROBLEM YOUR ARE SOLVING IN THE PR TITLE AND DESCRIBE YOUR SOLUTION HERE !!!! DO NOT FORGET !!!! 👮🏻👮🏻👮🏻
PR Checklist:
make)make test)go fmt)golangci-lint run)go list -json -m all | nancy sleuth)Thank you for your code, it's appreciated! :)
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
--num_max_workersfor enhanced control over concurrency during testing.num_max_workersin the benchmark settings for improved transaction processing flexibility.genfunction for more granular control over node and application settings.Bug Fixes