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

feat: strengthen the load generator with fuzz input #2389

Closed

Conversation

Lincyaw
Copy link
Contributor

@Lincyaw Lincyaw commented Feb 25, 2024

Background

The original load generator only sends the same request template, which lacks diversity.
Adding a fuzzy-style request generator will make the request more general.

@Lincyaw Lincyaw requested review from yoshi-approver and a team as code owners February 25, 2024 03:48
Copy link
Collaborator

@NimJay NimJay left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you so much for this improvement, @Lincyaw! It looks great!
Also, the tests are passing. 👍

There's just one issue regarding the requirements.in file — see my comment(s).

@@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ zope-event==5.0
# via gevent
zope-interface==6.1
# via gevent

faker==23.2.1
# via faker
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Issue: This faker import should be specified inside src/loadgenerator/requirements.in.

'quantity': random.choice([1,2,3,4,5,10])})
'quantity': random.randint(1,100)})

def empty_cart(l):
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thought:
Other method names use camelCase, but empty_cart is good.
We should use snake_case for Python function names, based on this StackOverflow post.
No action needed (since this is out-of-scope for your change and you've gotten it right).

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've opened #2397. No action needed from this pull-request.

@Lincyaw
Copy link
Contributor Author

Lincyaw commented Feb 27, 2024

Thanks for your review! I will open another pull request

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