Benchmark: ChartingLibraryCandidateHackathon1

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id="myChart"></canvas>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/chart.js@2.8.0"></script>

Script Preparation code:

new Chart(document.getElementById("myChart"), {
    "type": "line",
    "data": {
        "labels": ["January", "February", "March", "April", "May", "June", "July"],
        "datasets": [{
            "label": "Price History",
            "data": [65, 59, 80, 81, 56, 55, 40],
            "fill": false,
            "borderColor": "rgb(75, 192, 192)",
            "lineTension": 0
        }]
    },
    options: {
        scales: {
            yAxes: [{
                ticks: {
                    // Include a dollar sign in the ticks
                    callback: function(value, index, values) {
                        return '$' + value;
                    }
                }
            }]
        }
    }
});

Tests:

should load
const blah = 0;
should definitely load
const blah2 = 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
should load
should definitely load

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Charting Library Benchmark**

The primary objective of this benchmark is to compare the performance of different charting libraries, in this case, Chart.js (version 2.8.0).

**Options Compared:**

1. **Chart.js Options**: The script preparation code defines options for the chart, such as:
	* `type`: specifies the chart type (line).
	* `data` and `datasets`: define the data and datasets for the chart.
	* `fill`, `borderColor`, and `lineTension`: customize the appearance of the line.
2. **Scale Options**: The options object also defines scale settings:
	* `scales`: specifies the y-axis scales.
	* `yAxes`: configures the y-axis tick behavior, including a callback function to format the ticks with a dollar sign.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Chart.js Options**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides flexibility in customizing chart appearance.
		- Allows for easy experimentation with different options.
	+ Cons:
		- May lead to slower performance due to excessive configuration.
2. **Scale Options**:
	* Pros:
		+ Enables fine-grained control over tick formatting and behavior.
	* Cons:
		+ Can add complexity and overhead, potentially impacting performance.

**Library Usage:**

The benchmark uses Chart.js (version 2.8.0), which is a popular JavaScript library for creating responsive charts. The chart is created using the `Chart` constructor, passing in a canvas element (`document.getElementById("myChart")`) as its context.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES6 features. However, it does utilize the `const` keyword to declare variables and the arrow function syntax for defining callback functions.

**Other Alternatives:**

1. **Alternative Charting Libraries**: Other popular charting libraries that could be used instead of Chart.js include:
	* D3.js (Data-Driven Documents)
	* Highcharts
	* Pixi.js
2. **In-Browser Testing Frameworks**: Alternative testing frameworks for browser-based tests, such as:
	* Jest (with a focus on JavaScript and React-specific features)
	* Cypress
	* Puppeteer

These alternatives can be used to write benchmarks for different charting libraries or testing frameworks, allowing users to compare performance, scalability, and usability across various tools.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.67 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
should load	886268288.0 Ops/sec
should definitely load	911218752.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

ChartingLibraryCandidateHackathon1 (version: 0)

Charting library candidate for tomorrows hackathon

Comparing performance of: should load vs should definitely load

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

should load

should definitely load

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):