Skip to content

Run LargeTestSuite with the old backend once - #392

Merged
adrpo merged 1 commit into
OpenModelica:masterfrom
adrpo:heavy-tests-largetestsuite-ob
Nov 4, 2026
Merged

adrpo merged 1 commit into
OpenModelica:masterfrom
adrpo:heavy-tests-largetestsuite-ob

Conversation

@adrpo

@adrpo adrpo commented Nov 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Purpose

The report LargeTestSuite_OB is from 2023-06-13 (v1.22.0-dev.169). Commit f1b2023 removed the LargeTestSuite OB entry from configs/heavy_tests.json, so no job updates it.

Approach

  • Add a LargeTestSuite OB entry to configs/heavy_tests.json, before the NB entry.
  • It is a copy of the NB entry, with the same ulimitExeModels, but:
    • it has no extraCustomCommands, so it uses the old backend;
    • it uses -O0 -march=native, as the other OB entries.
  • This is for one heavy_tests run. Remove the entry after the run.

Testing

  • The file is valid JSON and has the two LargeTestSuite entries, OB and NB.
  • Not run locally.

An AI agent (Claude Code) wrote this change.


🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The LargeTestSuite_OB report in heavy_tests is from 2023 (v1.22), as
f1b2023 removed the OB entry. Add it again for one run, to compare
the old backend with the new backend. The entry is the NB entry
without the new backend flags and with -O0, as the other OB entries.

Remove the entry after the run.

Assisted-by: Claude Opus 5.5
@adrpo adrpo self-assigned this Nov 4, 2026
@adrpo
adrpo merged commit 7da78b4 into OpenModelica:master Nov 4, 2026
7 checks passed
@casella

casella commented Nov 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@adrpo the reason it was removed is that it is horribly slow, we know it, and the only cure for that is to switch to the NB. There's no point wasting time to re-discover this every time we run heavy_test. We should spend our limited resource to see what improvements we get with the NB instead 😃

I would suggest (as I already suggested @kabdelhak) to run it once and then remove it again.

@adrpo

adrpo commented Nov 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I put it back because @kabdelhak wanted baseline numbers, I will take it out again when they told me we don't need to run it again.

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