| msg74545 - (view) |
Author: Pawel Prokop (pprokop) |
Date: 2008-10-08 20:28 |
| I've needed to measure each unit test running time to measure the performance changing of each functionality that every test case tests. Latest version of pyunit has only displayed summary running time of the suite, so I've implemented small enhancement to unittest.py that (in verbose mode) shows time of each test case run. Maybe that would be usefull for anybody else? |
|
|
| msg87989 - (view) |
Author: Michael Foord (michael.foord) *  |
Date: 2009-05-17 11:28 |
| Needs test and documentation. Otherwise looks good. |
|
|
| msg95253 - (view) |
Author: Pawel Prokop (pprokop) |
Date: 2009-11-14 19:00 |
| Repack of unittest was good idea. It is a patch against trunk, one test case is provided and documentation update. |
|
|
| msg109448 - (view) |
Author: Ezio Melotti (ezio.melotti) * |
Date: 2010-07-07 01:57 |
| The idea is interesting, but I would prefer to have a way to enable/disable this feature (and maybe even specify its format, e.g. the number of decimals). Moving the logic to an external function (possibly used as a decorator) might avoid some code duplication, but OTOH it would probably slow down the execution and the timing a little (I'm not sure that matters though). |
|
|
| msg110692 - (view) |
Author: Mark Lawrence (BreamoreBoy) * |
Date: 2010-07-18 21:46 |
| Pawel, could you please provide an update wrt Ezio's comment on , thanks. |
|
|
| msg110800 - (view) |
Author: Pawel Prokop (pprokop) |
Date: 2010-07-19 19:13 |
| I think that a delay time of calling a decorator is not important, because this should be constant in each test execution, so no matter. I shall be able to provide a patch in few days. Thanks |
|
|
| msg110883 - (view) |
Author: Michael Foord (michael.foord) * |
Date: 2010-07-20 11:01 |
| I am in the process of creating an extension mechanism for unittest which will make adding this sort of use case to unittest much easier. *Even* if it is added to the core it should be in the form of an extension (plugin) so please don't update the patch until this is in place. |
|
|
| msg154650 - (view) |
Author: Piotr Dobrogost (piotr.dobrogost) |
Date: 2012-02-29 16:53 |
| @Michael Foord > I am in the process of creating an extension mechanism for unittest > which will make adding this sort of use case to unittest much easier How is it going? |
|
|
| msg154678 - (view) |
Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * |
Date: 2012-03-01 07:47 |
| I think this would be a useful feature. |
|
|
| msg154687 - (view) |
Author: Michael Foord (michael.foord) * |
Date: 2012-03-01 11:11 |
| Yes, it would definitely be useful (as would a count of how far through the test run we are [27/129] style). Getting to completing (even for testing) the "extensible" unittest is something I will still do (and nose2 is being built off the prototype work I did), but isn't going to happen immediately - so it's not a good reason to hold up these improvements. I'll be sprinting at PyCon and look at this issue then. I'm keen to avoid proliferating command line parameters to the unittest test runner. Ezio - why would you want to disable this feature? |
|
|
| msg154769 - (view) |
Author: Ezio Melotti (ezio.melotti) * |
Date: 2012-03-02 15:27 |
| Because it looks like line noise and doesn't provide an useful information in most of the cases (at least for me), see e.g.: + test_format (__main__.MyTestCase) ... [0.000612s] skipped 'not supported in this library version' + test_nothing (__main__.MyTestCase) ... [0.000486s] skipped 'demonstrating skipping' + test_windows_support (__main__.MyTestCase) ... [0.000090s] skipped 'requires Windows' It might still be useful to find the slowest test(s), or for test suites that take a long time (so I'm not opposed to having it as an option that can be enabled if needed), but for most of the tests it will just show an almost meaningless fraction of second. |
|
|
| msg154771 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2012-03-02 15:36 |
| Also, when you’re tracking down slow tests, you may want to run your tests with the time needed by each test file and then each test method. Nite that I don’t know of a way to have unittest print each test file to stdout now (i.e. a level of verbosity between “just one dot” and “each method”). |
|
|
| msg154776 - (view) |
Author: Pawel Prokop (pprokop) |
Date: 2012-03-02 16:23 |
| I agree with Ezio, this feature should have an option to enable/disable. Anyway, I use it in different way. Since 2008, I've used this feature for performance comparision, whether some implementation changes in application code did not slow down application. Tests run after each commit. I compare execution time of particular test before and after commit. With additional scripts, I create metrics and charts using gnuplot to visualize how execution time of each test changed during the development. I can ensure the performance stability of the application. |
|
|
| msg155721 - (view) |
Author: Michael Foord (michael.foord) * |
Date: 2012-03-14 05:33 |
| I'm working on a modified version of the patch that is switched on with a command line option --timer=0.1 (or similar). Only tests that take longer than the threshold have the time printed. --timer=0 is valid, but it still only works when unittest is running with with verbose. |
|
|
| msg176157 - (view) |
Author: anatoly techtonik (techtonik) |
Date: 2012-11-23 09:10 |
| pyunit_time.patch is invalid - missing space on the last line. |
|
|
| msg337648 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) * |
Date: 2019-03-11 05:24 |
| Hello. This is something I needed so I decided to implement it by taking inspiration from pytest's --durations=N argument, which basically does the same (except that it uses 0.XX precision instead of 0.XXX). PR at: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/12271 |
|
|
| msg362067 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) * |
Date: 2020-02-16 12:49 |
| I updated the PR for Python 3.9. I think it's ready to be merged. Can someone involved in unittest take a look at it? |
|
|