Hey all, So I woke up early this morning, and was running some tests through autospec, and it returned a time as follows: Finished in 0.0151600000000001 seconds I know that there are alot of other more important issues being addressed right now for the rspec project, (2.0 for Rails 3.0). However, do we really need this level of precision for spec tests? I know that it''s nice to see if your refactoring made any changes in overall performance. But do we really need it carried out to 16 decimal places? Just seems like over kill to me. One solution I had thought about was simply having a boolean switch option for rspec called precise, wherein it would print shortened, less precise times for those who wanted it. I''d even be willing to do the leg work/patches for it if this doesn''t seem like a crazy idea. Just self.trying_to + something.useful? -- Ronald Chaplin <t73net at t73.biz> T73 Biz
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Ronald Chaplin <t73net at t73.biz> wrote:> Hey all, > So I woke up early this morning, and was running some tests through > autospec, and it returned a time as follows: > > Finished in 0.0151600000000001 seconds > > I know that there are alot of other more important issues being > addressed right now for the rspec project, (2.0 for Rails 3.0). However, > do we really need this level of precision for spec tests? I know that > it''s nice to see if your refactoring made any changes in overall > performance. But do we really need it carried out to 16 decimal places? > Just seems like over kill to me. >Hey Ronald, Is this actually causing you pain? RSpec isn''t doing anything special to get 16 decimal places here. It just uses Timeout from the standard lib, which offers no API for precision. Reducing the precision would require additional code in RSpec, and _that_ seems like overkill to me :) Cheers, David One solution I had thought about was simply having a boolean switch> option for rspec called precise, wherein it would print shortened, less > precise times for those who wanted it. I''d even be willing to do the leg > work/patches for it if this doesn''t seem like a crazy idea. > > Just self.trying_to + something.useful? > > -- > Ronald Chaplin <t73net at t73.biz> > T73 Biz > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20091230/d6157d42/attachment.html>
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 09:26 -0600, David Chelimsky wrote:> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Ronald Chaplin <t73net at t73.biz> > wrote: > Hey all, > So I woke up early this morning, and was running some tests > through > autospec, and it returned a time as follows: > > Finished in 0.0151600000000001 seconds > > I know that there are alot of other more important issues > being > addressed right now for the rspec project, (2.0 for Rails > 3.0). However, > do we really need this level of precision for spec tests? I > know that > it''s nice to see if your refactoring made any changes in > overall > performance. But do we really need it carried out to 16 > decimal places? > Just seems like over kill to me. > > > Hey Ronald, > > > Is this actually causing you pain? RSpec isn''t doing anything special > to get 16 decimal places here. It just uses Timeout from the standard > lib, which offers no API for precision. Reducing the precision would > require additional code in RSpec, and _that_ seems like overkill to > me :)Hey David, Great book btw. I''m learning so much and it has really helped me in my newbie days to ruby. No, it''s not a pain. Just seemed like overkill that it would report to such a finite decimal place is all. I guess that''s the PHPer in me ackking @ the wasted numbers :p -- Ronald Chaplin <t73net at t73.biz> T73 Biz> > Cheers, > David > > > One solution I had thought about was simply having a boolean > switch > option for rspec called precise, wherein it would print > shortened, less > precise times for those who wanted it. I''d even be willing to > do the leg > work/patches for it if this doesn''t seem like a crazy idea. > > Just self.trying_to + something.useful? > > -- > Ronald Chaplin <t73net at t73.biz> > T73 Biz > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Ronald Chaplin <t73net at t73.biz> wrote:> On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 09:26 -0600, David Chelimsky wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Ronald Chaplin <t73net at t73.biz> > > wrote: > > Hey all, > > So I woke up early this morning, and was running some tests > > through > > autospec, and it returned a time as follows: > > > > Finished in 0.0151600000000001 seconds > > > > I know that there are alot of other more important issues > > being > > addressed right now for the rspec project, (2.0 for Rails > > 3.0). However, > > do we really need this level of precision for spec tests? I > > know that > > it''s nice to see if your refactoring made any changes in > > overall > > performance. But do we really need it carried out to 16 > > decimal places? > > Just seems like over kill to me. > > > > > > Hey Ronald, > > > > > > Is this actually causing you pain? RSpec isn''t doing anything special > > to get 16 decimal places here. It just uses Timeout from the standard > > lib, which offers no API for precision. Reducing the precision would > > require additional code in RSpec, and _that_ seems like overkill to > > me :) > > Hey David, > Great book btw. I''m learning so much and it has really helped me in my > newbie days to ruby. >That''s great to hear. Thanks!> No, it''s not a pain. Just seemed like overkill that it would report to > such a finite decimal place is all. I guess that''s the PHPer in me > ackking @ the wasted numbers :p >:) Thanks for playing! Cheers, David> -- > Ronald Chaplin <t73net at t73.biz> > T73 Biz > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > > > > One solution I had thought about was simply having a boolean > > switch > > option for rspec called precise, wherein it would print > > shortened, less > > precise times for those who wanted it. I''d even be willing to > > do the leg > > work/patches for it if this doesn''t seem like a crazy idea. > > > > Just self.trying_to + something.useful? > > > > -- > > Ronald Chaplin <t73net at t73.biz> > > T73 Biz >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20091230/b0954a65/attachment-0001.html>