8000 Upload failed triangulations as artifacts from benchmarks run by Czaki · Pull Request #7766 · napari/napari · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Upload failed triangulations as artifacts from benchmarks run #7766

8000
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 1, 2025
Merged

Upload failed triangulations as artifacts from benchmarks run #7766

merged 5 commits into from
Apr 1, 2025

Conversation

Czaki
Copy link
Collaborator
@Czaki Czaki commented Mar 31, 2025 •
edited by jni
Loading

References and relevant issues

For easier debugging of #7747

Description

In #7632 I have added dump of problematic shapes that crash triangulation. I think that such an option to debug problematic cases may be introduced in other part of the codebase.

This PR adds to benchmarks an upload of this data dump for easier debugging of CI.

@Czaki Czaki added the maintenance PR with maintance changes, label Mar 31, 2025
@Czaki Czaki added this to the 0.6.0 milestone Mar 31, 2025
@Czaki Czaki requested a review from a team as a code owner March 31, 2025 08:07
@jni jni changed the title Upload failed trinagulation result as benchamrk artifacts Upload failed triangulations as artifacts from benchmarks run Mar 31, 2025
@jni jni added the ready to merge Last chance for comments! Will be merged in ~24h label Mar 31, 2025
@jni
Copy link
Member
jni commented Mar 31, 2025

@Czaki feel free to merge when you think this is ready. Do you want to use the run-benchmarks tag to make sure the action works?

@Czaki Czaki added the run-benchmarks Add this label to trigger a full benchmark run in a PR label Mar 31, 2025
@codecov Codecov
Copy link
codecov bot commented Mar 31, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 92.93%. Comparing base (8a958c9) to head (0c46668).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7766      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.97%   92.93%   -0.04%     
=======================================
8000
===
  Files         633      633              
  Lines       59245    59245              
==========================================
- Hits        55081    55059      -22     
- Misses       4164     4186      +22

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@Czaki Czaki mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2025
Merged
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

The Qt benchmark run requested by PR #7766 (edbd344 vs 8a958c9) has finished with status 'failure'. See the CI logs and artifacts for further details.

Change Before [8a958c9] After [edbd344] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
+ 14.1±1ms 27.4±10ms 1.94 benchmark_qt_viewer_image.QtViewerImageSuite.time_refresh(4096)

SOME BENCHMARKS HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.
The non-Qt benchmark run requested by PR #7766 (edbd344 vs 8a958c9) has finished with status 'failure'. See the CI logs and artifacts for further details.

Change Before [8a958c9] After [edbd344] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
+ 21.0±0.3μs 118±10μs 5.63 benchmark_labels_layer.Labels3DSuite.time_fill(512, <class 'numpy.uint32'>)

SOME BENCHMARKS HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the run-benchmarks Add this label to trigger a full benchmark run in a PR label Mar 31, 2025
@jni
Copy link
Member
jni commented Mar 31, 2025

hmm, what does failure() detect? Does it detect failed benchmarks or only crashes? I don't see the tmp directory in the current artifacts.

@Czaki Czaki added the run-benchmarks Add this label to trigger a full benchmark run in a PR label Mar 31, 2025
@Czaki Czaki added run-benchmarks Add this label to trigger a full benchmark run in a PR and removed run-benchmarks Add this label to trigger a full benchmark run in a PR labels Mar 31, 2025
@Czaki
Copy link
Collaborator Author
Czaki commented Mar 31, 2025

hmm, what does failure() detect? Does it detect failed benchmarks or only crashes? I don't see the tmp directory in the current artifacts.

Detect if any previous workflow steep failed. Current artifact does not contain it because the benchmark does not fail on triangulation (only one dumping problematic data for now).

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

The Qt benchmark run requested by PR #7766 (7b6cc45 vs 8a958c9) has finished with status 'failure'. See the CI logs and artifacts for further details.

Change Before [8a958c9] After [7b6cc45] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
+ 354±40ms 589±50ms 1.66 benchmark_qt_viewer_image.QtViewerViewImageSuite.time_view_image(4096)

SOME BENCHMARKS HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.
The non-Qt benchmark run requested by PR #7766 (7b6cc45 vs 8a958c9) has finished with status 'success'. See the CI logs and artifacts for further details.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the run-benchmarks Add this label to trigger a full benchmark run in a PR label Mar 31, 2025
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

The Qt benchmark run requested by PR #7766 (9fb265a vs 8a958c9) has finished with status 'failure'. See the CI logs and artifacts for further details.

Change Before [8a958c9] After [9fb265a] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
- 62.0±7ms 40.7±8ms 0.66 benchmark_qt_viewer_vectors.QtViewerViewVectorSuite.time_vectors_multi_refresh(1024)
Change Before [8a958c9] After [9fb265a] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
---------- ---------------------- --------------------- --------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 36.8±3ms 81.5±10ms 2.22 benchmark_qt_slicing.QtViewerAsyncImage2DSuite.time_z_scroll(0.1, 'jrc_hela-2 (scale 3)')
+ 524±60ms 797±100ms 1.52 benchmark_qt_viewer_image.QtViewerViewImageSuite.time_view_image(4096)

SOME BENCHMARKS HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.
The non-Qt benchmark run requested by PR #7766 (9fb265a vs 8a958c9) has finished with status 'success'. See the CI logs and artifacts for further details.

@Czaki Czaki added the run-benchmarks Add this label to trigger a full benchmark run in a PR label Mar 31, 2025
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

The Qt benchmark run requested by PR #7766 (e7c463a vs 8a958c9) has finished with status 'success'. See the CI logs and artifacts for further details.

Change Before [8a958c9] After [e7c463a] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
- 4.11±2ms 2.50±0.03ms 0.61 benchmark_qt_slicing.AsyncImage2DSuite.time_create_layer(0.05, 'skin_data')
- 8.09±0.6ms 4.50±0.1ms 0.56 benchmark_qt_viewer_image.QtViewerImageSuite.time_refresh(2048)
- 11.7±6ms 6.30±0.3ms 0.54 benchmark_qt_slicing.AsyncImage2DSuite.time_refresh(0.0, 'jrc_hela-2 (scale 3)')

SOME BENCHMARKS HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.
The non-Qt benchmark run requested by PR #7766 (e7c463a vs 8a958c9) has finished with status 'success'. See the CI logs and artifacts for further details.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the run-benchmarks Add this label to trigger a full benchmark run in a PR label Mar 31, 2025
@jni jni merged commit 59371ce into napari:main Apr 1, 2025
42 checks passed
@jni jni deleted the repor_failed_triangulation branch April 1, 2025 07:09
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the ready to merge Last chance for comments! Will be merged in ~24h label Apr 1, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jni jni jni approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
maintenance PR with maintance changes,
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.6.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@Czaki @jni
0