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

Fold benchmark suites into aeson.cabal #504

Closed
RyanGlScott opened this issue Jan 4, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

Fold benchmark suites into aeson.cabal #504

RyanGlScott opened this issue Jan 4, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@RyanGlScott
Copy link
Member

Right now, aeson's benchmark suites are sequestered off in a separate benchmarks repo, complete with its own .cabal file that duplicates much of aeson.cabal. This is annoying for several reasons:

  1. This .cabal file duplicates the amount of work needed to maintain aeson, since changes to aeson.cabal must be copied over.
  2. Furthermore, this upkeep doesn't always happen. Some of the benchmarks seem to be bitrotten (see Speed up default FromJSON/ToJSON instances #335 (comment)) or broken (see Compiling aeson-benchmark-dates with GHC 8.0.1 exhausts simplifier ticks #502).
  3. The benchmarks aren't installable from Hackage or Stackage, which makes them hard to discover. (Plus, if Stackage built the benchmarks regularly, it would help ensure they continue to compile correctly, avoiding scenarios like Compiling aeson-benchmark-dates with GHC 8.0.1 exhausts simplifier ticks #502).

We should strive to just copy over the benchmark suites from aeson-benchmarks.cabal into aeson.cabal to help alleviate these problems.

@phadej
Copy link
Collaborator

phadej commented Jan 4, 2017

Unfortunately it's not currently possible because of circular dependency (thru criterion). This is Cabal issue.

@phadej
Copy link
Collaborator

phadej commented Jan 4, 2017

FWIW: you can give feedback in haskell/cabal#4087

@bos bos closed this as completed Jan 4, 2017
@bos
Copy link
Collaborator

bos commented Jan 4, 2017

@RyanGlScott, now you know why this is a common pattern ;-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants