Include additional OutputTargets from TestPackage in TestRunner #351
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…n the TestRunner creates a CompositeBenchmarkOutput
…uded when writing to benchmark outputs
|
|
|
Looks good to me @taaaki - just need a CLA signature and then we can merge this in. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Updated the CreateOutput function in the TestRunner class to include any additional output targets specified on the TestPackage by the client code. The additional output targets are currently ignored as per issue #350 and this change seeks to address that by appending these additional outputs to the list that gets used when building the CompositeBenchmarkOutput.
Further to that, I have added a unit test to validate this behaviour, but I would appreciate feedback on this part from someone more familiar with the project and its unit tests as I wasn't entirely sure how to approach this. The test I added appears to function correctly, but there's likely a better way.