homepage

#6422 implemented the autorange function for timeit, but in msg272704, Steven D'Aprano outlined follow-up change requests to that patch.
- make the 0.2s time configurable;
- have `timeit` and `repeat` methods (and functions) fall back 
 on `autorange` if the number is set to 0 or None.
Opening this ticket for those change requests.

Assigning to @Mariatta for the sprints.

Hello @Mariatta,
if this is simple I would like to work on that, can I?
Thanks!

@steven.daprano, would you be able to review the pull requests based on your original concept for this change? Thank you!

> @steven.daprano, would you be able to review the pull requests based 
> on your original concept for this change? Thank you!
With difficulty... for technology/financial reasons, I don't have a 
browser that works properly with github. But I'll do what I can.

(Sorry, I can't comment on Github.)
Looking at PR 12954:
I'm not sure about the API for making the time used by autorange configurable. The time taken is only used when autoranging, but the API takes it as an argument to the constructor even if it won't be used. I haven't thought deeply about this for a few years, so now I'm wondering if this is the best API. Let me think some more.
However, the parameter name "max_time_taken" is certainly wrong: it can be wrongly read as meaning the maximum time the sample code will run, which is not the case. 
Also, it is not a maximum time, it is a *minimum* time: the autoranger increases the number of loops until it takes *at least* ``max_time_taken`` seconds, not at most.
So I think a better name might be something like ``target_time``. It suggests a time we are targeting, not one we promise to hit precisely, it doesn't mislead into thinking it will be the total time. And it is a bit shorter without being cryptically short.
Anyone have any better suggestions for the parameter name?
Likewise I suggest ``default_target_time`` for the global (line 62).
With the longer parameter list, there's a couple of places that the line length seems to exceed 79 columns, e.g. lines 244, 272.
Line 176: I think that should be ``if number == 0:`` since we don't want to accept any arbitrary falsey value, just zero.
NEWS line 4: take out the reference to None.
(I haven't reviewed the tests at this stage.)

Looking at PR 12953:
The only API for setting the target time is by passing it to the autorange method directly. So I think that there's no way for the caller of ``Timer.timeit()`` or ``Timer.repeat()`` to specify a custom target time, is that right?

Michele, Alessandro, thank you both for your work! And thank you Cheryl for managing this ticket.
I like mangrisano's design where the target time is passed as an argument to the ``autorange`` method, although I prefer the name "target_time". (But I'm open to alternatives.)
So I think a good approach might be a hybrid between mangrisano's design, and the design by Alessandro:
1. the constructor takes the target time and records it as an attribute;
def __init__(self, ..., target_time=default_target_time):
 self.target_time = target_time
2. when the ``timeit`` method is used, if number=0 the target time is taken from self.target_time and passed to ``autorange``;
- if the ``autorange`` method is called directly, the caller can override the target time by passing it as argument; otherwise the default value is looked up from the instance attribute.
So something like
def autorange(self, callback=None, target_time=None):
 if target_time is None:
 target_time = self.target_time
 ...
Please suggest alternatives or point out anything I may have missed, and thank you all again!
(I'm now going to be away from the keyboard for at least the next 18 hours so if I don't reply quickly, that's why.)

Thanks Steven, I like the new name "target_time".
Just a question: why we need to check ``if number == 0:``? In the proposal you asked for None too. What changed? Even if the function is called with False, will it hurts to keep the default value?
I'll try to implement your ideas during this weekend.

I agree with *target_time*. I'm working on it and soon I'm going to update the pr.

Sorry for the late reply.
> Just a question: why we need to check ``if number == 0:``? In the 
> proposal you asked for None too. What changed? Even if the function is 
> called with False, will it hurts to keep the default value?
Fair question. On rethinking, I'm okay with an explicit check for None 
or zero, ``if number is None or number < 0`` but I don't like the idea 
of accepting *any* falsey value.
Calling the function with False is fine, since False == 0 but I don't 
think it is fine to call the function with (say) [] or {} or "", which 
are all falsey values.

> ``if number is None or number < 0``
Sorry, that should be number == 0