Skip to content

Convert to pydantic validation #65

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
kdvalin merged 1 commit into from
Jan 20, 2026
Merged

Convert to pydantic validation #65

kdvalin merged 1 commit into from
Jan 20, 2026

Conversation

@kdvalin
Copy link
Member

@kdvalin kdvalin commented Jan 12, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Description

Instead of using fragile regular expression logic to validate test results, pydantic allows for much more maintainable methods.

Presently the validation looks for:

  • iteration > 0
  • threads > 0
  • IterationsPerSec > 0.0 (can't be NaN or inf)

Before/After Comparison

Before

Validation code was using regular expressions, which are hard to maintain and liable to breaking in ways hard to understand.

After

Validation code uses pydantic, which is much simpler and easier to understand.

Clerical Stuff

Closes #58

Relates to JIRA: RPOPC-581

CSV Output

# Test general meta start
# Test: coremark
# Results version: v1.01
# Host: --sys_type
# Sys environ: None
# Tuned: tuned_none
# OS: 6.18.3-200.fc43.x86_64
# Numa nodes: 1
# CPU family: AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7840HS w/ Radeon 780M Graphics
# Number cpus: 16
# Memory: 64420248kB
# Test general meta end
iteration:threads:IterationsPerSec
1:16:352578.228294
1:16:376323.010584

Run log

coremark.log

@kdvalin
refactor(validation): Convert to pydantic validation
88e0457 
Instead of using fragile regular expression logic to validate test
results, pydantic allows for much more maintainable methods.

Presently the validation looks for:
- iteration > 0
- threads > 0
- IterationsPerSec > 0.0 (can't be NaN or inf)
@kdvalin kdvalin requested a review from a team January 12, 2026 18:48
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 20, 2026

This relates to RPOPC-581

dvalinrh
dvalinrh approved these changes Jan 20, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@dvalinrh dvalinrh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@dvalinrh dvalinrh added the group_review_lgtm Indicates approval after a group review meeting label Jan 20, 2026
@kdvalin kdvalin merged commit 4139117 into main Jan 20, 2026
3 of 8 checks passed
@kdvalin kdvalin deleted the ci/validation branch January 20, 2026 15:38
@kdvalin kdvalin mentioned this pull request Jan 20, 2026
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@dvalinrh dvalinrh dvalinrh approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

group_review_lgtm Indicates approval after a group review meeting

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Use python/json utils to validate results.

3 participants

@kdvalin @dvalinrh