🤖 Update Mock Benchmark Results

[thomhurst]

Automated Mock Benchmark Update

This PR updates the mock benchmark documentation with the latest results from the Mock Benchmarks workflow.

Benchmarks Produced

Individual benchmark artifacts are available for download:

• mock-benchmark-MockCreation
• mock-benchmark-Setup
• mock-benchmark-Invocation
• mock-benchmark-Verification
• mock-benchmark-Callback
• mock-benchmark-CombinedWorkflow
• mock-benchmark-summary (aggregated overview)

Libraries Compared

Libraries are discovered dynamically from the benchmark output. See the generated summary.json for the full list.

Changes

• Updated mock benchmark data in docs/static/benchmarks/mocks/latest.json
• Regenerated mock benchmark documentation in docs/docs/benchmarks/mocks/
• Updated mock benchmark summary in docs/static/benchmarks/mocks/summary.json

Workflow Run

• Run ID: 24017112853
• Triggered: schedule

---

🤖 This PR was automatically created and will be merged automatically once CI checks pass.

[claude]

Code Review: Automated Mock Benchmark Update

This is a purely automated documentation update — no code changes, only benchmark data and markdown refreshes.

Summary of Changes

• Date stamps updated: 2026-04-05 → 2026-04-06
• Benchmark numbers refreshed across all 6 categories (Callback, CombinedWorkflow, Invocation, MockCreation, Setup, Verification)
• JSON data files (latest.json, summary.json) updated accordingly

Notable Benchmark Trends (vs previous run)

Improvements for TUnit.Mocks:

• Invocation: 368.7 ns → 255.7 ns (~30% faster) with lower allocation (176 B → 120 B) — a meaningful gain
• Invocation (String): 227.7 ns → 152.2 ns (~33% faster), allocation dropped 112 B → 88 B
• Invocation (100 calls): 39,741.9 ns → 26,043.7 ns (~34% faster), 18048 B → 11936 B
• MockCreation: Minor improvement, 37.32 ns → 35.02 ns

Slight regressions for TUnit.Mocks:

• Callback: 651.9 ns → 719.4 ns (~10% slower)
• CombinedWorkflow: 1.864 μs → 2.064 μs (~11% slower)

The Invocation improvements are significant and consistent across all invocation variants, suggesting something meaningful changed (either in the framework or in CI machine conditions). The Callback and CombinedWorkflow regressions are relatively small and within normal run-to-run variance given CI scheduling variability.

TUnit.Mocks continues to lead in MockCreation and Invocation benchmarks by a wide margin against Moq, NSubstitute, and FakeItEasy.

No Issues Found

The automation is well-structured: data files and generated markdown are updated together, charts and y-axis scales are recalculated correctly, and timestamps are consistent across all files. This is clean, low-risk documentation maintenance.

[claude]

Code Review: Automated Mock Benchmark Update

This is a purely automated documentation update — no code changes, only benchmark data and markdown refreshes.

Summary of Changes

• Date stamps updated: 2026-04-05 → 2026-04-06
• Benchmark numbers refreshed across all 6 categories (Callback, CombinedWorkflow, Invocation, MockCreation, Setup, Verification)
• JSON data files (latest.json, summary.json) updated accordingly

Notable Benchmark Trends (vs previous run)

Improvements for TUnit.Mocks:

• Invocation: 368.7 ns → 255.7 ns (~30% faster) with lower allocation (176 B → 120 B)
• Invocation (String): 227.7 ns → 152.2 ns (~33% faster), allocation dropped 112 B → 88 B
• Invocation (100 calls): 39,741.9 ns → 26,043.7 ns (~34% faster), 18048 B → 11936 B
• MockCreation: Minor improvement, 37.32 ns → 35.02 ns

Slight regressions for TUnit.Mocks:

• Callback: 651.9 ns → 719.4 ns (~10% slower)
• CombinedWorkflow: 1.864 μs → 2.064 μs (~11% slower)

The Invocation improvements are significant and consistent across all invocation variants. The Callback and CombinedWorkflow regressions are small and likely within normal CI run-to-run variance.

TUnit.Mocks continues to lead in MockCreation and Invocation benchmarks by a wide margin against Moq, NSubstitute, and FakeItEasy.

No Issues Found

The automation is well-structured: data files and generated markdown are updated together, charts and y-axis scales are recalculated correctly, and timestamps are consistent across all files. This is clean, low-risk documentation maintenance.

[codacy-production]

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

_{TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes. Give us feedback}