I've just been reviewing recent changes in ncov-ingest while investigating #471
I noticed that every rule now has gotten 2 new lines benchmark: "benchmarks/rulename.txt". I'm all for benchmarking, i.e. getting runtime/memory/cpu usage information - but it seems this way of doing things is suboptimal - there's almost no intrinsic information here, one could easily write a few-line macro that adds the 2 lines to every rule based on each rule's rule name.
I'm not saying we should do this in ncov-ingest, really, snakemake should not require these verbose directives but offer a single CLI option that auto-generates the benchmark files.
But I noticed it here so thought I'll raise it.
The immediate harm of the 2 lines is that the diff I'm reviewing has a lot of noise (it's like reformatting). For now I'd be in favour of not adding benchmarks to other workflows until there's a less intrusive/verbose way of doing so.
I've just been reviewing recent changes in ncov-ingest while investigating #471
I noticed that every rule now has gotten 2 new lines
benchmark: "benchmarks/rulename.txt". I'm all for benchmarking, i.e. getting runtime/memory/cpu usage information - but it seems this way of doing things is suboptimal - there's almost no intrinsic information here, one could easily write a few-line macro that adds the 2 lines to every rule based on each rule's rule name.I'm not saying we should do this in ncov-ingest, really, snakemake should not require these verbose directives but offer a single CLI option that auto-generates the benchmark files.
But I noticed it here so thought I'll raise it.
The immediate harm of the 2 lines is that the diff I'm reviewing has a lot of noise (it's like reformatting). For now I'd be in favour of not adding benchmarks to other workflows until there's a less intrusive/verbose way of doing so.