Skip to content

Conversation

@devmotion
Copy link
Contributor

The purpose of this PR is two-fold:

  • Simplify the definition of the benchmarking GHA job based on the docs of AirspeedVelocity
  • Thereby support benchmarking of PRs from forks

I'm a bit unsure about the second point, but based on eg JuliaPhysics/DynamicQuantities.jl#183 my impression is that the action should support PRs from forks.

@devmotion
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ah I think I might have to update/refresh my fork such that it contains the latest commit on master in the original repo. I wonder if this could avoided by upstream changes in AirspeedVelocity

@devmotion devmotion closed this Nov 1, 2025
@devmotion devmotion reopened this Nov 1, 2025
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 1, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 85.76%. Comparing base (520dad3) to head (042ff55).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1192      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.73%   85.76%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          46       46              
  Lines        3604     3604              
==========================================
+ Hits         3090     3091       +1     
+ Misses        514      513       -1     

☔ 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.

@pkofod
Copy link
Member

pkofod commented Nov 1, 2025

Did you update your fork? If so, it seems like it has the same issue still

@devmotion
Copy link
Contributor Author

I did but I noticed that the name of the job is still generate_plots, not bench. So - probably due to GH security policies - the PR uses the version of the job on the master branch, not the modified version in this PR. So maybe there was actually no problem with my fork at all.

@pkofod
Copy link
Member

pkofod commented Nov 1, 2025

so probably just needs to be merged and will then work going forward?

@devmotion
Copy link
Contributor Author

At least it can be tested once it is merged.

@pkofod pkofod merged commit 22be384 into JuliaNLSolvers:master Nov 1, 2025
22 of 24 checks passed
@devmotion devmotion deleted the patch-2 branch November 1, 2025 22:53
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants