9cba420fd56aa53726f67c83df39b01605460c49
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 dtourolle
|
84fade99ec |
Put the developer docs under docs/dev and index the folder for users first
docs/ had 26 developer documents flat beside the manual, and the two audiences are very differently sized: most readers want the manual and the gesture reference, a few want the register, the designs and the measurements. The manual and gestures.md stay at the top; everything for someone changing the code moves to docs/dev/, and the two documents that name their own successors — the v0.1 milestone and the UI-refinement plan — go to docs/dev/archive/ rather than being deleted, since both are still cited. docs/README.md is the index, users first. Every reference follows: code comments, Cargo manifests, the workflows, the pre-commit hook, the bench and traceability tools (which locate the repo root by docs/dev/requirements.md now), packaging, the Docker READMEs, CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md and the README. The matrix links one level deeper and is regenerated. Links out of the moved documents into the tree gain a level; a link checker over every Markdown file finds none broken. |
||
|
dtourolle
|
e8e96eed40 |
Measure the performance targets §8 has been promising, and fail on a regression
docs/requirements.md §8 has said since it was written that performance is verified by "an automated benchmark suite against a synthetic 50k catalog, run per-commit … A regression beyond stated tolerance fails the build." There was none. No benches/, no [[bench]], no criterion, no synthetic catalog, and three CI workflows that between them measured nothing. Ten performance requirements could therefore be neither passed nor failed, and five of them carried a TRACES: tag regardless. tools/bench is the half of that promise that can be kept honestly on a runner with no GPU and no display. # The fixture Rows are cheap and pixels are not, so it builds fifty thousand catalog rows over a pool of a dozen real files, each referenced by several thousand of them. Everything the catalog half touches is rows and is exact at full scale; everything the pixel half touches is one file at a time and does not care how many rows point at it. Fourteen megabytes on disk instead of two terabytes, and neither half is flattered by the trade. It is reproducible from a seed, and a stamp beside it — seed, row count, source size, dr-catalog's schema version — rebuilds it rather than letting a run be compared against a baseline that describes a different library. # What it can now pass or fail NFR-P1, and R2's second sentence with it: Catalog::open plus the count, first window and timeline the grid cannot paint without. The interesting part turned out to be the open itself — schema::backfill runs three passes over the images table on every open, which is O(library) work on a path whose budget is stated in absolute seconds. Tagged TRACES: NFR-P1, on a gate that fails if it breaks. NFR-P3: thumbnail throughput on the embedded preview path, through the same per-image work spawn_thumbnail_sweep does and in the same shape — chunks of 96, lanes owning disjoint slices, the single thread that owns the store writing the finished chunk. Mirrored rather than called, because that function takes a RemoteBackend and would measure somebody's network. Tagged TRACES: NFR-P3. # What it deliberately does not claim NFR-P7 is the whole chain, and only the encode half of it runs without an adapter. So the export row is a one-sided gate — over two seconds in the encode alone violates the requirement; under it proves nothing — and there is no TRACES: NFR-P7 anywhere. NFR-P8 is about the application at idle, and the probe is a process holding the catalog and nothing else, so it records the catalog layer's share and carries no budget until somebody decides what that share should be. No tag there either. CONTRIBUTING.md asks that a requirement be closed by a test that would fail if the behaviour were removed, and two more plumbing tags is what this repository already has too many of. NFR-P8 also gets the answer §4.1 demands: RSS is exclusive of device-local GPU allocations and cannot be made otherwise, because such an allocation never enters the process's address space. The requirement should be restated as two figures, and docs/benchmarks.md says so. # Two gates, and why one of them steps aside off the reference desktop The budget is the requirement's own number and never moves. The baseline is what the reference desktop last measured, and drifting 15% past it fails the build even while still inside the budget — which is how performance rot actually arrives, never over the line, always a little worse. A budget written for twenty-four threads cannot be asserted on a two-core container. §8 names the reference desktop, not CI, so each metric declares whether its budget is machine-sensitive; those are asserted under --reference and reported everywhere else. Catalog open is not one of them: two seconds against an expected figure two orders of magnitude smaller is a threshold any machine can be held to. This is the trap core/dr-gpu/tests/frame_budget.rs already refuses — a red gate everybody learns to ignore. # The baseline ships with no numbers in it Every recorded field is null, because nobody has run it yet. Writing plausible-looking figures would make every later comparison a comparison against a guess, and the first real regression would be invisible. Run `dr-bench record --reference` on the reference desktop and commit the diff; until then the budget gate works and the report says the other one cannot. # CI .gitea/workflows/benchmark.yml, and its own workflow rather than a step in build-and-test.yml: a red "Build and test" says the code is wrong, a red "Benchmarks" says it got slower, and the second must not be reachable by retrying a flaky compile. The cpu job runs on every push and builds -p dr-bench alone — which is why that crate depends on no GPU and no UI crate. The gpu job is the frame budget that already exists and already skips without an adapter, on workflow_dispatch, because building wgpu on every commit to rediscover that the runner has no device is not a use of anybody's minutes. |