buffer: removed unused variable conf from buffer-base64-decode & buffer-base64-encode

[troy0820]

Removed unused variable conf from buffer-base64-decode.js and buffer-based64-encode.js

Checklist

• make -j8 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test nosign (Windows) passes
• tests and/or benchmarks are included
• documentation is changed or added
• commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

Buffer

Description of change

Deleted variable that wasn't used which was conf

[mscdex]

I'm not sure it's worth removing. Benchmarks like this probably should have defined parameters containing defaults of at least the currently used values.

[Trott]

I'm not sure it's worth removing. Benchmarks like this probably should have defined parameters containing defaults of at least the currently used values.

@mscdex Does this mean you would endorse (or at least not object to) a change from this:

varbench=common.createBenchmark(main,{});functionmain(conf){varN=64*1024*1024;varb=Buffer.allocUnsafe(N);vars='';vari;for(i=0;i<256;++i)s+=String.fromCharCode(i);for(i=0;i<N;i+=256)b.write(s,i,256,'ascii');bench.start();for(i=0;i<32;++i)b.toString('base64');bench.end(64);}

...to something more like this?:

varbench=common.createBenchmark(main,{N: [64*1024*1024],});functionmain(conf){varN=+conf.N;varb=Buffer.allocUnsafe(N);vars='';vari;for(i=0;i<256;++i)s+=String.fromCharCode(i);for(i=0;i<N;i+=256)b.write(s,i,256,'ascii');bench.start();for(i=0;i<32;++i)b.toString('base64');bench.end(64);}

[mscdex]

@Trott Pretty much, although the iteration count might be configurable as well like with most other benchmarks.

[troy0820]

@Trott@mscdex Do you want me to change the commit to the above snippet? I can make the changes and push the commit up to this branch.

[mscdex]

@troy0820 I think it would be better, yes. Just make sure to also add a parameter for the number of iterations (usually lowercase n).

[Trott]

number of iterations

@mscdex That would be the number of iterations in the loop between bench.start() and bench.end(), right? So, in the above example, it's 32? Also, would that value be passed to bench.end()? In the example above, 64 is hard-coded as what is sent to bench.end(), so...
¯\(ツ)/¯

[mscdex]

@Trott Correct. I don't know why 64 was being passed in the encode benchmark, it should be the loop count which is 32.

[Trott]

@troy0820 You up for making those changes as described above and trying to ascertain what the similar changes might be for the other file? (I'd guess just the iterations and nothing else in that file, but take a look and judge for yourself.)

[troy0820]

@Trott Yeah I can make those changes. It sounds like it's the above snippet along with the only change being the 32 in the bench.end(32) function and adding then param to the main function.
Only question is do you want 32 to be in the bench.end() function or n?
I'll update the PR 👍

[Trott]

@troy0820 You'll want to add an n variable to the conf for both files and set it to 32. Then you'll want to assign it to a variable (like I did in the snippet with N) and use that variable in the loop and in bench.end(). Hit me up on IRC if this isn't clear, or just make a go at it and we'll iterate if it's not quite right.

[troy0820]

Per discussion, adding an array to the createBenchmark object will allow the default buffer size to be included with the object and iteration in the loop. @mscdex@Trott

[mscdex]

We might want to give this a better name to avoid confusion. I think other benchmarks use names like len, which I would be fine with.

[mscdex]

This should be +conf.n.

[mscdex]

Similarly for these, the values should be prefixed with + to ensure they are numbers.

[mscdex]

Sorry, I meant this parameter should be called len. n should stay the same.

[jasnell]

Is the change from 64 to 32 in the bench.end(n) here intentional?

[jasnell]

Nevermind... just spotted the other comment about it :-)

[jasnell]

Ping @mscdex

[mscdex]

This should be const n = +conf.n;

[mscdex]

This should be const len = +conf.len;

[mscdex]

This should be const b = Buffer.allocUnsafe(len);

[mscdex]

N here should be len

[troy0820]

Rebased master and made changes @mscdex

[mscdex]

LGTM

[Trott]

Only relevant CI job for this is the linter, so here it is:

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-linter/6010/

[Trott]

Hmmm, the linter failed, but that might have been because it needed a rebase, which I just did. Let's try again...

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-linter/6014/

[Trott]

Linter is ✅

[Trott]

Landed in 7021e6b.
Thanks for the contribution, @troy0820! 🎉