Add benchmark scenario guidance

[koxudaxi]

No description provided.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@koxudaxi, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 5 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: b3f48cf1-cfb3-4a06-91dd-23bfb32e337d

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0f09aee and 50fbee6.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)

• tests/data/expected/release_benchmark_docs/release_benchmark_cli_outputs.txt is excluded by !tests/data/**/*.txt and included by none
• tests/data/expected/release_benchmark_docs/release_benchmark_escaped_hostile_text.txt is excluded by !tests/data/**/*.txt and included by none
• tests/data/expected/release_benchmark_docs/release_benchmark_rendered.txt is excluded by !tests/data/**/*.txt and included by none

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• docs/performance-benchmarks.md
• scripts/build_release_benchmark_docs.py

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch docs-benchmark-guidance

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[github-actions]

📚 Docs Preview: https://pr-3531.datamodel-code-generator.pages.dev

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 17.39%

⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected

Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.

For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

❌ 11 regressed benchmarks
⏩ 98 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	WallTime	test_perf_deep_nested	4.1 s	5.1 s	-19.08%
❌	WallTime	test_perf_kubernetes_style_pydantic_v2	2.1 s	2.6 s	-18.51%
❌	WallTime	test_perf_all_options_enabled	4.3 s	5.3 s	-18.13%
❌	WallTime	test_perf_stripe_style_pydantic_v2	1.6 s	2 s	-17.95%
❌	WallTime	test_perf_graphql_style_pydantic_v2	648 ms	787.9 ms	-17.76%
❌	WallTime	test_perf_openapi_large	2.4 s	2.9 s	-17.6%
❌	WallTime	test_perf_aws_style_openapi_pydantic_v2	1.6 s	1.9 s	-16.68%
❌	WallTime	test_perf_duplicate_names	851 ms	1,021 ms	-16.65%
❌	WallTime	test_perf_large_models_pydantic_v2	2.9 s	3.5 s	-16.56%
❌	WallTime	test_perf_multiple_files_input	2.9 s	3.4 s	-16.3%
❌	WallTime	test_perf_complex_refs	1.6 s	1.9 s	-16.04%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing docs-benchmark-guidance (50fbee6) with main (0f09aee)}

Footnotes

1. 98 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (0f09aee) to head (50fbee6).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main     #3531   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files          158       158           
  Lines        34254     34254           
  Branches      4001      4001           
=========================================
  Hits         34254     34254           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[github-actions]

🎉 Released in 0.67.0

This PR is now available in the latest release. See the release notes for details.