Skip to content

Make --join the default #1574

Open
Open
@stephentoub

Description

@stephentoub

When running lots of benchmarks, the first time I run them I invariably forget to include --join on my command line invocation, resulting in the benchmark results being spread across a long history of spewed output. I then take the time to run all the benchmarks again, this time with --join, as doing so is much less time consuming then finding all the results and manually cobbling them together into one table. Personally, I've never once wanted the non-joined behavior, and it'd be great from my perspective if --join were the default.

Activity

Scooletz

Scooletz commented on Oct 27, 2020

@Scooletz
Contributor

I agree with what @stephentoub stated above. I don't rerun my benchmarks and I do spend my time on

finding all the results and manually cobbling them together into one table

but having --join as a default would be great.

adamsitnik

adamsitnik commented on Oct 30, 2020

@adamsitnik
Member

@AndreyAkinshin any thoughts on that?

if we are going to implement it we should remember to allow the users to disable this behavior by passing --join false which is going to require a workaround (tmds/Tmds.LinuxAsync#29)

YegorStepanov

YegorStepanov commented on Jun 21, 2023

@YegorStepanov
Contributor

Bump, this is the top 6 problem by likes.

We can work around the bug by making .Join is Nullable<bool> (like Adam did in another repository).

"" -> true
"--join" -> true
"--join=true" -> true
"--join=false" -> false
timcassell

timcassell commented on Jun 21, 2023

@timcassell
Collaborator

Join as default would be nice, but I think it should work properly for all cases first. Are you still going to work on #2163 @YegorStepanov?

YegorStepanov

YegorStepanov commented on Jun 21, 2023

@YegorStepanov
Contributor

It should work properly for all cases first

In what cases does it not work?

Are you still going to work on #2163

Yep, sorry for not answering for a long time!

timcassell

timcassell commented on Jun 21, 2023

@timcassell
Collaborator

In what cases does it not work?

The issues that #2163 claims to fix (multiple types).

AndreyAkinshin

AndreyAkinshin commented on Jun 24, 2023

@AndreyAkinshin
Member

I agree with @timcassell: it makes sense to merge #2163 first.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

        Participants

        @Scooletz@AndreyAkinshin@stephentoub@adamsitnik@YegorStepanov

        Issue actions

          Make --join the default · Issue #1574 · dotnet/BenchmarkDotNet