You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I wonder if there is any way to improve the readability of the tables posted by this action when the benchmark names are too long. Take this one for example. We are finding it very hard to read the numbers given the last column gets wrapped.
Shorter benchmark names surely help, but it also sucks to sacrifice on their readability to make them fit... Maybe it would make sense to not put the benchmark case names on the first columns as code blocks using back ticks?
Or maybe there is a way to completely prevent the last column from wrapping? I much rather have the first column wrap.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Another option might be not include so much precision on the current/previous columns? For example, there is probably no difference between showing 151.74767917302637 and 151.7 us and that could make some significant space?
Thank you @jviotti for submitting this issue! I'll have a look at what options are available to make this more readable. We could probably get some additional space back by moving the units to a separate column so that ns/iter only occurs once.
I wonder if there is any way to improve the readability of the tables posted by this action when the benchmark names are too long. Take this one for example. We are finding it very hard to read the numbers given the last column gets wrapped.
Shorter benchmark names surely help, but it also sucks to sacrifice on their readability to make them fit... Maybe it would make sense to not put the benchmark case names on the first columns as code blocks using back ticks?
Or maybe there is a way to completely prevent the last column from wrapping? I much rather have the first column wrap.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: