Fix/1443 remove js runtime from threshold calculation #2400
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…_the_js_runtime_from_threshold_calcultations"" This reverts commit 22a0db3.
mstoykov
reviewed
Feb 25, 2022
mstoykov
reviewed
Feb 25, 2022
oleiade
force-pushed
the
fix/1443_remove_js_runtime_from_threshold_calculation
branch
2 times, most recently
from
985d033 to
49cb3d9
Compare
mstoykov
reviewed
Feb 25, 2022
oleiade
force-pushed
the
fix/1443_remove_js_runtime_from_threshold_calculation
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4190426 to
7fe6d03
Compare
This commit ensures that thresholds parsing is a separate step, done only when the `--no-threshold` flag is not set. Note that this commit deactivates tests that assumed `Thresholds.UnmarshalJSON` to effectively parse the thresholds.
oleiade
force-pushed
the
fix/1443_remove_js_runtime_from_threshold_calculation
branch
from
7fe6d03 to
69a2169
Compare
olegbespalov
reviewed
Mar 2, 2022
| // If parsing the threshold expressions failed, consider it as an | ||
| // invalid configuration error. | ||
| if !runtimeOptions.NoThresholds.Bool { | ||
| for _, thresholds := range conf.Options.Thresholds { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if we move this loop to the conf.options.ValidateTreshholds ? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that is probably a small enough change to be done, but given that we are trying to get it merged before the release - I vote for leaving this for the next PR in the next release that will either way add a bunch of Validation.
olegbespalov
reviewed
Mar 2, 2022
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Otherwise, attempt to parse a percentile expression | ||
| if strings.HasPrefix(input, tokenPercentile+"(") && strings.HasSuffix(input, ")") { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we change the logical condition to, we can benefit from the early return with the error that strictly follows from the check, like:
if !strings.HasPrefix(input, tokenPercentile+"(") || !strings.HasSuffix(input, ")") {
return "", null.Float{}, fmt.Errorf("failed parsing method from expression")
}
And this change also reduces the nesting of the ifs, which improves readability.
WDYT?
mstoykov
approved these changes
Mar 2, 2022
olegbespalov
approved these changes
Mar 3, 2022
|
Thanks everyone, for your input 🎉 |
This was referenced Mar 10, 2022
mstoykov
deleted the
fix/1443_remove_js_runtime_from_threshold_calculation
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This Pull Request does the following:
--no-thresholdsoption of theruncommandThresholds.Parsemethod. Calls it as part of theruncommandthresholds_test.gowhich assumedUnmarshalJSONwould parse thresholdsThis PR acts as a tentative to address the minimum scope necessary to merge Thresholds parsing safely to master. It will need to lead to further refactors and improvements both in k6 itself, and in our internal infrastructure.
Reviewers can safely ignore the merge commit, as it was already approved in #2251. Reviewers should focus on the last commit only.