-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 172
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
refactor: downsampling test #999
refactor: downsampling test #999
Conversation
The stability test above seems good. @sashacmc can you please review this? Thanks. |
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.
Small note, others LGTM.
Thanks!
let rate_check = move |ke: KeyExpr, rate: usize| -> bool { | ||
tracing::info!("keyexpr: {ke}, rate: {rate}"); | ||
if ke == ke_10hz { | ||
rate > 0 && rate <= 10 + 1 |
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.
Do we really still need this +1
?
In the old test, this made it possible to cover fluctuations, but in theory they shouldn’t exist here?
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.
TBH, I don't want it as well. But we seem to need it based on the test results.
This PR aims to make the test
It also includes
rate_check
in the future if more rigorous criteria are in demand. (Actually, a similar logic can apply to the other tests.)