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

Performance issue #4

Open
sol opened this issue Jan 18, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

Performance issue #4

sol opened this issue Jan 18, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@sol
Copy link
Member

sol commented Jan 18, 2018

https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/7q3pgq/how_to_combine_smallchecks_ability_to_find/

@sol
Copy link
Member Author

sol commented Jan 18, 2018

@runeksvendsen this looks bad, but hopefully easy to fix. Can you help with adding a minimal self-contained example that demonstrates the issue?

@sol
Copy link
Member Author

sol commented Jan 18, 2018

I just did a couple of test with the example given in the tasty readme and couldn't see any performance difference between hspec and tasty.

What I noticed though is that for some reason ghci is about twice as fast as compiled (regardless of optimization level).

@runeksvendsen
Copy link

runeksvendsen commented Jan 18, 2018

I will see if I can deduce a proper, minimal example.

Lessons so far: it's not shouldBe vs == (makes no difference if I switch out shouldBe with ==).

Possible clue: are Hspec and Tasty handling depth in the same way? In other words, does defaultConfig { configSmallCheckDepth = <depth> } for Hspec has the same effect as localOption (SC.SmallCheckDepth <depth>) for Tasty?

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

2 participants