Reduction in code lines of microbenchmark tool, improving readability

[PranjalC100]

No description provided.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @PranjalC100, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request focuses on a comprehensive refactoring of the microbenchmark tool's helper utilities. The primary goal was to achieve a substantial reduction in code lines and improve overall readability and maintainability. This was accomplished by streamlining function definitions, removing excessive comments and docstrings, and adopting more concise programming patterns in both Python and shell scripts. The changes are purely structural and do not alter the functional behavior of the benchmarking tool.

Highlights

• Code Conciseness: Significantly reduced the lines of code across multiple Python and shell scripts by removing redundant comments, docstrings, and consolidating logic.
• Readability Improvements: Enhanced code clarity through more Pythonic idioms, simplified conditional statements, and streamlined function implementations.
• Refactored Core Logic: Key functions like 'generate_fio_job_file' and 'process_fio_metrics_and_vm_metrics' were rewritten for better efficiency and brevity.
• Dependency Management Simplification: The 'starter_script.sh' now includes global OS/architecture detection and simplified installation routines for 'yq', 'fio', and 'golang'.
• Removed Unused Code: Eliminated various unused imports and 'if name == 'main': ' example blocks from helper modules.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request does an excellent job of refactoring the codebase to be more concise and Pythonic, significantly reducing lines of code by removing unnecessary comments, docstrings, and boilerplate. The use of more advanced language features like itertools.product and list/dict comprehensions has improved readability in many places. However, this large-scale refactoring has introduced a few critical bugs, including NameError exceptions from using undefined variables and a potential KeyError from unsafe dictionary access. My review focuses on identifying and fixing these issues to ensure the code is not only more compact but also correct and robust.

[gemini-code-assist]

This except block will raise a NameError because the variable e is used in the print statement on the next line but is not defined in this scope. You should change except Exception: to except Exception as e: to capture the exception object.

Suggested change

	except Exception:
	except Exception as e:

[gemini-code-assist]

This line will raise a NameError because it references result.stdout, but the result of the subprocess.run call on line 115 was assigned to the variable res. You should use res.stdout instead.

Suggested change

	if 'failure.txt' in result.stdout:
	if 'failure.txt' in res.stdout:

[gemini-code-assist]

This finally block will raise a NameError because local_file_path is not defined in the new function body. The temporary file object is named tmp, so you should use tmp.name to get its path for cleanup. This bug also causes a resource leak as the temporary file is never deleted because of the NameError.

Suggested change

	if local_file_path and os.path.exists(local_file_path):
	os.remove(local_file_path)
	print(f"Removed temporary file: {local_file_path}")
	if os.path.exists(tmp.name):
	os.remove(tmp.name)
	print(f"Removed temporary file: {tmp.name}")

[gemini-code-assist]

Using direct dictionary access like cfg['bench_env'] is brittle and can lead to a KeyError if the configuration file is missing expected keys, even after rationalization. It would be safer to use the .get() method with default values to prevent the program from crashing. This pattern is used elsewhere in the codebase (e.g., in helper.py:create_benchmark_vm) and should be applied here for consistency and robustness.

Suggested change

	vm_cfg = {'instance_name': cfg['bench_env']['gce_env']['vm_name'], 'zone': cfg['bench_env']['zone'], 'project': cfg['bench_env']['project']}
	vm_cfg = {'instance_name': cfg.get('bench_env', {}).get('gce_env', {}).get('vm_name'), 'zone': cfg.get('bench_env', {}).get('zone'), 'project': cfg.get('bench_env', {}).get('project')}

[gemini-code-assist]

The exception handling has been simplified, but it now loses valuable debugging information. The previous implementation specifically caught subprocess.CalledProcessError and raised an exception with e.stderr, which is very helpful for diagnosing gcloud command failures. The new generic except Exception loses this detail. I suggest reintroducing specific handling for CalledProcessError to improve error diagnostics.

Suggested change

	except FileNotFoundError:
	raise RuntimeError("The 'gcloud' command was not found. Please ensure Google Cloud SDK is installed and configured in your system's PATH.")
	except subprocess.CalledProcessError as e:
	raise RuntimeError(f"Failed to create bucket: {e.stderr}")
	except Exception as e:
	raise RuntimeError(f"An unexpected error occurred: {e}")
	raise RuntimeError(f"Failed to create bucket. An unexpected error occurred: {e}")
	except FileNotFoundError:
	raise RuntimeError("The 'gcloud' command was not found. Please ensure Google Cloud SDK is installed and configured in your system's PATH.")
	except subprocess.CalledProcessError as e:
	raise RuntimeError(f"Failed to create bucket: {e.stderr}")
	except Exception as e:
	raise RuntimeError(f"Failed to create bucket. An unexpected error occurred: {e}")