-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 590
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
Account for time spent in garbage collection #3979
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, I really like this approach! You've already handled most of the tricky double-counting concerns too, so I have fewer nitpicks than I feared 🙂
hypothesis-python/src/hypothesis/internal/conjecture/junkdrawer.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
e452a0c
to
3f79ceb
Compare
c434f20
to
2e5e9cf
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
8d23490
to
e580dff
Compare
1395d9d
to
68e818a
Compare
All tests passed, finally. There were more complications than I expected, the two major ones are commented above. The scrutineer part is probably just due to more variation in traces; which can be seen as a good thing, as the variation covers more of real-world usage (although some globbing would be nice to have in that list). The recursion depth thing Anyway: Ready for re-review :-) |
(jumping on a flight to PyCon now, but the Scrutineer thing is not a problem, and I'll aim to review the unraisable problem later) |
Thanks @Zac-HD! Have fun at PyCon! |
a3af8e8
to
d3baf60
Compare
(just want to note that I haven't forgotten about this; it's just tricky enough that I need a dedicated chunk of time to think about it and make sure I've tested all the edge cases. thanks for your patience 🙏) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @jobh, I've added a last test based on your repro and I think we're ready to merge!
and also handle it in scrutineer trace, since that can happen.
@Zac-HD I think it's ready now. Review guidance:
Additionally,
|
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Yes please! I've hacked this locally many times while tracking down internal errors.
undoubtedly from #3962. We can just add |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Github apparently didn't notify me for a few days (???), but this looks great! Thanks for persisting through @jobh, it's the accumulation of this kind of careful handling that makes our user experience so good 🤩
Avoid flaky DeadlineExceeded due to garbage collection.
See #3975 (comment).