fix(testing): incomplete reading of benchmark time in b.N loops

[not-matthias]

No description provided.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes a critical bug in the benchmark timing infrastructure where SaveMeasurement() was being called before the timer was stopped, leading to incomplete or inaccurate duration measurements in b.N loop benchmarks. The fix adds a runtime panic guard to detect this condition and reorders the method calls to ensure measurements are only saved after timers have been properly stopped.

Key changes:

• Added a panic guard in SaveMeasurement() to prevent it from being called while timerOn is true
• Reordered SaveMeasurement() to be called after StopTimer() in __codspeed_root_frame__runN()
• Reordered SaveMeasurement() to be called after StopTimerWithoutMarker() in Loop()

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
testing/testing/benchmark.go	Added panic guard in SaveMeasurement() and reordered timer stop/measurement save calls in runN() and Loop() to ensure timer is stopped before reading duration
testing/patches/benchmark_savemeasurement_bug.patch	Patch file containing the same fixes to be applied during the fork process to Go's standard testing package
testing/fork.sh	Added application of the new benchmark_savemeasurement_bug.patch to the build process

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codspeed]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #43 will degrade performances by 29.54%

_{Comparing cod-1776-go-benchmarks-report-1ns-time-for-fuego (5331397) with main (0ee1cab)}

Summary

⚡ 1 improvement
❌ 4 regressions
✅ 43 untouched

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Change
❌	BenchmarkLargeSetupInLoop	9.8 ms	11.9 ms	-17.82%
❌	BenchmarkSleep100ns_Loop	240 ns	300 ns	-20%
❌	bench_collect_results[10000000, 10]	2.4 s	3.4 s	-29.54%
❌	bench_collect_results[5000000, 25]	2.5 s	3.1 s	-18.47%
⚡	bench_go_runner	130.4 s	56 s	×2.3

[adriencaccia]

LGTM
Is such a speedup intended? https://codspeed.io/CodSpeedHQ/codspeed-go/branches/cod-1776-go-benchmarks-report-1ns-time-for-fuego?utm_source=github&utm_medium=comment&utm_content=header&uri=go-runner%2Fbenches%2Fgo_runner.rs%3A%3Abench_go_runner&runnerMode=WallTime&sectionId=benchmark-comparison-section-comparison-improved

[not-matthias]

LGTM Is such a speedup intended? https://codspeed.io/CodSpeedHQ/codspeed-go/branches/cod-1776-go-benchmarks-report-1ns-time-for-fuego?utm_source=github&utm_medium=comment&utm_content=header&uri=go-runner%2Fbenches%2Fgo_runner.rs%3A%3Abench_go_runner&runnerMode=WallTime&sectionId=benchmark-comparison-section-comparison-improved

It's a flaky benchmark, we're likely bottlenecked by the disk read/write speed since we're copying, patching and building a Go project.