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

Sandcastle profiling category? #2146

Closed
mramato opened this issue Sep 23, 2014 · 8 comments · Fixed by #2163
Closed

Sandcastle profiling category? #2146

mramato opened this issue Sep 23, 2014 · 8 comments · Fixed by #2163

Comments

@mramato
Copy link
Contributor

mramato commented Sep 23, 2014

There's a Profiling category in Sandcastle with a single example about profiling half-dome (and it has no associated screenshot). Was this merged into master by accident? It seems too developer specific to be included in Sandcastle proper as part of a release.

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Contributor

pjcozzi commented Sep 23, 2014

From #2102

I'd still rather not have these here; it is yet another place we need to remember to update. Perhaps just separate Sandcastle examples would be OK - long-term, we may have a label for examples not included in the final release but used for testing and profiling. Or perhaps there is a way another way to get a time interval from the network profile? Or just not submit anything for now.

@mramato
Copy link
Contributor Author

mramato commented Sep 24, 2014

It should be easy to put any dev only examples in a "gallery/debug" directory and then not include them in the release zip. I have a few gists I currently use that I would probably throw in there if we do this. I'll look into it.

@shunter
Copy link
Contributor

shunter commented Sep 24, 2014

I would say just get rid of the profiling example, and move it to a gist as Matt does (I have done the same as well). I don't see the benefit in maintaining one-off test cases like these in the repository directly. It's not a useful example or demo.

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Contributor

pjcozzi commented Sep 24, 2014

Removing is OK with me.

@kring
Copy link
Member

kring commented Sep 25, 2014

I'm the one that merged that, sorry.

@mramato
Copy link
Contributor Author

mramato commented Sep 25, 2014

No big deal. I was under the assumption we really wanted it in there; sounds like it's no big deal to just remove it then.

@chris-cooper
Copy link
Contributor

Can I suggest some consideration is given to profiling a standard set of scenarios like the one removed? Ideally this would be part of the testing framework to help identify performance regressions. The reason I created the sandcastle example was to be a simple manual first step in that direction. Sandcastle has the advantage that it's visual so you can get a perceptive feel for how long it's taking. I for one was pretty shocked at how long this scene was taking to resolve on a laptop (see #2102)

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Contributor

pjcozzi commented Oct 4, 2014

We do some manual performance testing each release with CPU- and GPU-bound Sandcastle scenarios to make sure that performance (1) doesn't degrade, or (2) degrades for a reason.

abwood pushed a commit to abwood/cesium that referenced this issue Nov 18, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants