Skip to content

Conversation

ray6080
Copy link
Contributor

@ray6080 ray6080 commented Sep 9, 2025

Description

To avoid waiting for some long-running tests locally, this PR starts to add an initial separation of fast and slow tests, which is done by appending a "_SLOW" suffix at the end of test case name.

There can be other more sophisticated mechanisms to separate the fast and slow test cases, but I feel it's unnecessarily complicated vs. simply use the test case suffix, which still allows us to organize tests accordingly to their functionality and is more flexible.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 9, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.11765% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.61%. Comparing base (b8e3ac7) to head (c87df4c).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
test/storage/node_update_test.cpp 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
test/transaction/transaction_test.cpp 88.88% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5995      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.20%   85.61%   -0.59%     
==========================================
  Files        1457     1643     +186     
  Lines       66386    76422   +10036     
  Branches     8137     9123     +986     
==========================================
+ Hits        57225    65427    +8202     
- Misses       8896    10728    +1832     
- Partials      265      267       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ
extension 63.57% <0.00%> (?)
in-mem 80.77% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
on-disk 86.28% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
recovery 86.28% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 9, 2025

Benchmark Result

Master commit hash: 1c3fa86da43eeeb471abaab6751ea8583ebaed90
Branch commit hash: 5863579d7fc85591e4fb6bef0e882fb825702a13

No major diffs!

Other queries
Query Group Query Name Mean Time - Commit (ms)
aggregation q24 710.04
aggregation q28 7718.60
filter q14 61.51
filter q15 64.32
filter q16 278.45
filter q17 383.10
filter q18 1849.11
filter zonemap-node 28.78
filter zonemap-node-lhs-cast 29.98
filter zonemap-node-null 28.63
filter zonemap-rel 5018.57
fixed_size_expr_evaluator q07 625.29
fixed_size_expr_evaluator q08 908.10
fixed_size_expr_evaluator q09 910.96
fixed_size_expr_evaluator q10 199.19
fixed_size_expr_evaluator q11 195.75
fixed_size_expr_evaluator q12 175.84
fixed_size_expr_evaluator q13 1503.14
fixed_size_seq_scan q23 56.92
join q29 842.06
join q30 1460.79
join q31 5.15
join SelectiveTwoHopJoin 53.01
ldbc_snb_ic q35 12.50
ldbc_snb_ic q36 97.02
ldbc_snb_is q32 3.41
ldbc_snb_is q33 12.47
ldbc_snb_is q34 2.21
limit push-down-limit-into-distinct 1980.88
multi-rel multi-rel-large-scan 1577.15
multi-rel multi-rel-lookup 8.66
multi-rel multi-rel-small-scan 210.65
order_by q25 66.65
order_by q26 386.36
order_by q27 1304.17
recursive_join recursive-join-bidirection 380.72
recursive_join recursive-join-dense 7088.31
recursive_join recursive-join-path 23652.02
recursive_join recursive-join-sparse 11.48
recursive_join recursive-join-trail 7049.60
scan_after_filter q01 110.51
scan_after_filter q02 94.31
shortest_path_ldbc100 q37 220.57
shortest_path_ldbc100 q38 338.58
shortest_path_ldbc100 q39 76.86
shortest_path_ldbc100 q40 494.05
var_size_expr_evaluator q03 2140.52
var_size_expr_evaluator q04 2147.78
var_size_expr_evaluator q05 2575.69
var_size_expr_evaluator q06 1291.43
var_size_seq_scan q19 1356.24
var_size_seq_scan q20 2132.58
var_size_seq_scan q21 2101.35
var_size_seq_scan q22 110.59

@ray6080 ray6080 requested a review from andyfengHKU September 10, 2025 15:33
@ray6080 ray6080 marked this pull request as ready for review September 10, 2025 15:33
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