Superficial as in all I want is the two numbers to be printed out at the end. Why do I have to go look at flame charts and timelines? Boggles the mind.
If you look at the documentation of what I am actually interested it is time-timeEnd or profile-profileEnd. With profile end I just don't get output on console and have to jump back and forth between these views looking at a ton of crap I am not interested in. With timeEnd I get the number I want but would like to see a "safe" approved way of where to place the timeend while dealing with async/promises/recursion separately and together.
I am used to testing different approaches within a function. Running the approaches overnight and just getting the 2 numbers printed out for each. Only if these deviate from expectations does the timeline and flamechart etc become useful. But Google debugging implementation seems to assume perf optimization is done in the opposite direction.
> With timeEnd I get the number I want but would like to see a "safe" approved way of where to place the timeend while dealing with async/promises/recursion separately and together.
Measuring asynchronous code? You are not measuring your code. Your code is only the synchronous parts, the time spent in asynchronous parts are "environmental factors". Your code doesn't run during those times, it sits in the event loop waiting for an event so that it can continue.
If you look at the documentation of what I am actually interested it is time-timeEnd or profile-profileEnd. With profile end I just don't get output on console and have to jump back and forth between these views looking at a ton of crap I am not interested in. With timeEnd I get the number I want but would like to see a "safe" approved way of where to place the timeend while dealing with async/promises/recursion separately and together.
I am used to testing different approaches within a function. Running the approaches overnight and just getting the 2 numbers printed out for each. Only if these deviate from expectations does the timeline and flamechart etc become useful. But Google debugging implementation seems to assume perf optimization is done in the opposite direction.