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

[FEATURE REQUEST] Using parallel to multithreading? #127

Open
dalisoft opened this issue Apr 27, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

[FEATURE REQUEST] Using parallel to multithreading? #127

dalisoft opened this issue Apr 27, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@dalisoft
Copy link

Hi @pgrange

Using parallel could be improve test time? It is possible?

@pgrange
Copy link
Owner

pgrange commented Apr 28, 2024

That's an interesting challenge, I'm not sure about the implication in the code base and I don't plan to tackle that right now but let's keep it open, you never know.

In the meantime, I see a path for you to rely on parallel and check if that improves your execution time and that would be by running different tests files in parallel. So it wouldn't be bash_unit which would run all the tests in parallel but rather you who would have to run bash_unit in parallel with all the test files and then, each test file would run the tests sequentially but in parallel with the other test files.

For instance, if I want to do that to run the tests of bash_unit, I would probably do something like that (running inside bash_unit repository):

parallel ./bash_unit ::: tests/test_*                                            

And I can, indeed, observe a slightly better test time.

I'm aware it's not perfect as it's relying on you to organize your tests so that they're not in the same file if you want to run them in parallel. But maybe that can help you with bash_unit as it is know.

Cheers,

@dalisoft
Copy link
Author

Thank you for detailed response and solution for my use cases.

bash_unit really helped much in my project to keep project much stable and reliable and allows me add features without losing code old functionality.

so let’s keep opened as you suggested.

Thank you again

cheers,

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