8000 feat: weak_partial by tlambert03 · Pull Request #171 · pyapp-kit/psygnal · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

feat: weak_partial#171

Closed
tlambert03 wants to merge 5 commits intopyapp-kit:mainfrom
tlambert03:weak_callable
Closed

feat: weak_partial#171
tlambert03 wants to merge 5 commits intopyapp-kit:mainfrom
tlambert03:weak_callable

Conversation

@tlambert03
Copy link
Member
@tlambert03 tlambert03 commented Feb 15, 2023

playing around a bit here. this replace all of the various SlotCaller subtypes with a single weak_partial object that I can imagine wanting to use in other libraries (might make it a public export eventually).

@codecov
Copy link
codecov bot commented Feb 15, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Base: 100.00% // Head: 99.63% // Decreases project coverage by -0.37% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (1f2e45f) compared to base (6f314a9).
Patch coverage: 94.52% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main     #171      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   99.63%   -0.37%     
===========================================
  Files           14       15       +1     
  Lines         1422     1378      -44     
===========================================
- Hits          1422     1373      -49     
- Misses           0        5       +5
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/psygnal/_weak_partial.py 91.66% <91.66%> (ø)
src/psygnal/_signal.py 99.71% <100.00%> (-0.29%) ⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@codspeed-hq
Copy link
codspeed-hq bot commented Feb 15, 2023 •
edited
Loading

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #171 weak_callable (1f2e45f) will degrade performances by 31.9%.

Summary

🔥 0 improvements
❌ 22 regressions
✅ 34 untouched benchmarks

🆕 0 new benchmarks
⁉️ 0 dropped benchmarks

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Benchmarks breakdown

Benchmark main weak_callable Change
❌ test_connect_time[setattr-check_types] 35.5 µs 74.7 µs -110.28%
❌ test_connect_time[setattr-] 35.4 µs 74.4 µs -109.91%
❌ test_connect_time[setitem-check_types] 36.6 µs 66.4 µs -81.26%
❌ test_connect_time[setitem-] 36.6 µs 66.5 µs -81.41%
❌ test_emit_time[method-18] 221 µs 304.5 µs -37.77%
❌ test_emit_time[method-34] 327.3 µs 483.8 µs -47.81%
❌ test_emit_time[method-50] 434.2 µs 664 µs -52.90%
❌ test_emit_time[partial_method-2] 120.9 µs 135.9 µs -12.42%
❌ test_emit_time[partial_method-18] 273.1 µs 402.3 µs -47.32%
❌ test_emit_time[partial_method-34] 422.8 µs 668.8 µs -58.18%
❌ test_emit_time[partial_method-50] 570.8 µs 926.5 µs -62.31%
❌ test_emit_time[setattr-2] 101.9 µs 126.2 µs -23.77%
❌ test_emit_time[setattr-18] 133.6 µs 312.1 µs -133.55%
❌ test_emit_time[setattr-34] 166.8 µs 499.2 µs -199.32%
❌ test_emit_time[setattr-50] 200 µs 685.9 µs -242.94%
❌ test_emit_time[setitem-2] 106.4 µs 127.4 µs -19.73%
❌ test_emit_time[setitem-18] 169.5 µs 325.4 µs -91.95%
❌ test_emit_time[setitem-34] 232.9 µs 523.2 µs -124.66%
❌ test_emit_time[setitem-50] 297.1 µs 721.3 µs -142.82%
❌ test_emit_time[print-18] 635.7 µs 751.7 µs -18.25%
❌ test_emit_time[print-34] 1.1 ms 1.3 ms -19.60%
❌ test_emit_time[print-50] 1.6 ms 1.9 ms -20.43%

@tlambert03
Copy link
Member Author
tlambert03 commented Feb 15, 2023

ha ... turns it it's very hard to touch anything here without decreasing performance 😂

@tlambert03
Copy link
Member Author
tlambert03 commented Feb 19, 2023

see #178 instead

@tlambert03 tlambert03 closed this Feb 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@tlambert03
0