Whole file

psf/pyperf

The author described this change as fix very verbose output: runs => samples. It counts as a record because the check below fails on the code as it stood at f46c6db02 and passes on 872da7e33, with nothing else changed between the two runs.

Projectpsf/pyperf
Fix saved2016-06-09
Sharing licenceMIT · COPYING
Change size+1 1

What the code was meant to do, written into the code itself as a save note

fix very verbose output: runs => samples

The change

343343 def _very_verbose_run(run):
344344 # FIXME: use run.formatter
345345 text = ', '.join(_format_timedeltas(run.samples))
346- text = 'runs (%s): %s' % (len(run.samples), text)
346+ text = 'samples (%s): %s' % (len(run.samples), text)
347347 if run.warmups:
348348 text = ('warmup (%s): %s; %s'
349349 % (len(run.warmups),

The check that tells the two apart

failpass·perf/tests/test_perf_cli.py::TestPerfCLI::test_results_verbose

Check file perf/tests/test_perf_cli.py, taken without changes from the fix and copied onto the older code, so the exact same check runs against both versions.

Origin and history

The code before itf46c6db0271d0d0207e219d3ed754ce9f918eaf9
Broken version dated2016-06-09
Moduleperf.__init__
Units changed_very_verbose_run
Fingerprintdac468ea4de2c2a7
Checked2026-08-18 by goldset/0.1

Every field above is generated by our program. None of it is written by hand.

Other bugs found in psf/pyperf