Re: [libgpiod][PATCH 1/1] gpio-tools-test.bats: modify delays in toggle test

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 04:13:06PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 12:05 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 11:51:05AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:54 PM Slater, Joseph
> > > <joe.slater@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Slater, Joseph] I'll get rid of the comment and try the test with a shorter toggle time.
> > > > The series of 159 tests takes, maybe, 10-15 minutes for me, so I don't think saving a
> > > > second or two here would make much difference, though.
> > > > Joe
> > > >
> > >
> > > That can't be right, are you running it on a toaster? It takes 26
> > > seconds on my regular lenovo thinkpad laptop which is still longer
> > > than I'd like but quite acceptable for now (though I agree it would be
> > > great to improve it).
> > >
> >
> > Consider yourself blessed.
> > I just got:
> >
> > real    2m25.956s
> >
> > on my test VM.
> > Not sure exactly what the hold up is - it isn't using much CPU, or any
> > other resources AFAICT.
> > Compared to all the other test suites I run, this is far and away the
> > slowest, especially since switching everything over to gpio-sim.
> 
> I agree it's too slow - be it 20 seconds or 2 minutes. But similarly
> to you - it's very low on my TODO list as I only run it every once in
> a while. I'd be happy to accept any patches improving the situation of
> course.
> 

Same.  I already had a go at streamlining the tests when I updated them
for v2, so it is somewhat better than it was, but it is still painfully
slow for me.
To improve further I'd have to start digging around to see what bats is
up to.  Speaking of which, do we need to stick with bats?
I've driven similar tests with Python in the past, and I'm sure that
would provide a better experience.
What constraints do we have?

Cheers,
Kent.