Skip to content

⚡️ Speed up function get_windows_executable_command by 158%#4

Open
codeflash-ai[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
codeflash/optimize-get_windows_executable_command-ma2xrxku
Open

⚡️ Speed up function get_windows_executable_command by 158%#4
codeflash-ai[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
codeflash/optimize-get_windows_executable_command-ma2xrxku

Conversation

@codeflash-ai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@codeflash-ai codeflash-ai Bot commented Apr 29, 2025

📄 158% (1.58x) speedup for get_windows_executable_command in src/mcp/client/stdio/win32.py

⏱️ Runtime : 182 milliseconds 70.5 milliseconds (best of 106 runs)

📝 Explanation and details

Certainly! Let’s analyze the profiling results and rewrite the function for speed.

Profiling Analysis

  • The shutil.which calls dominate runtime—especially the ones inside the extension loop (almost 79% of the time).
  • Creating formatted strings for each extension and calling shutil.which serially is inefficient.

Optimization Approach

  • Cut redundant lookups: Use the shutil.which “PATHEXT” search feature, which already tries .COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD (and others based on system configuration). On Windows, shutil.which('foo') automatically checks extensions given by the PATHEXT environment variable.
  • Only need to call shutil.which(command)—no need for a manual extension loop in most cases.
  • As an extra safety, can manually try Case 2 (explicit extensions—e.g., .ps1 is not always in PATHEXT), but only if the first call fails.

Optimized Code

Summary of Changes

  • Removed the slow extension loop; rely on shutil.which (leverages PATHEXT).
  • Only falls back to .ps1 search if normal search fails (optional, if really needed).
  • Fewer calls, less string formatting, much less repeated work; this will run a lot faster, especially under heavy load or many queries.

Let me know if you want further Windows-specific fine-tuning!

Correctness verification report:

Test Status
⚙️ Existing Unit Tests 🔘 None Found
🌀 Generated Regression Tests 1022 Passed
⏪ Replay Tests 🔘 None Found
🔎 Concolic Coverage Tests 2 Passed
📊 Tests Coverage 70.0%
🌀 Generated Regression Tests Details
import shutil  # used for the function's implementation

# imports
import pytest  # used for our unit tests
from src.mcp.client.stdio.win32 import get_windows_executable_command

# unit tests

def test_basic_command_exists():
    # Test with a basic command that should exist without extensions
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command("python")

def test_command_with_extension():
    # Test with a command that should resolve with an extension
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command("cmd")

def test_nonexistent_command():
    # Test with a command that does not exist
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command("nonexistentcommand")

def test_command_with_spaces():
    # Test with a command containing spaces, which should not resolve
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command("Program Files")

def test_command_with_path():
    # Test with a direct path to an executable
    path = "C:\\Windows\\System32\\calc.exe"
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command(path)

def test_empty_command():
    # Test with an empty command string
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command("")

def test_command_with_mixed_case():
    # Test with a command with mixed case
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command("NoTePaD")

def test_large_scale_commands():
    # Test with a large list of commands to assess performance
    commands = ["cmd", "python", "git", "powershell"]
    for command in commands:
        codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command(command)

def test_multiple_versions():
    # Test with a command that might have multiple versions
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command("python")

def test_environment_specific_command():
    # Test with a command that might exist only in certain environments
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command("envspecificcommand")
# codeflash_output is used to check that the output of the original code is the same as that of the optimized code.

import shutil  # used to locate commands in the system's PATH

# imports
import pytest  # used for our unit tests
from src.mcp.client.stdio.win32 import get_windows_executable_command

# unit tests

def test_command_exists_without_extension():
    # Test with a command that exists in PATH without extension
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command('python')

def test_command_exists_with_extension():
    # Test with a command that exists in PATH with an extension
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command('python.exe')

def test_command_exists_only_with_extensions():
    # Test with a command that exists only with extensions
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command('npm')

def test_command_exists_with_multiple_extensions():
    # Test with a command that exists with multiple extensions
    # Assuming 'mytool.cmd' is found first
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command('mytool')

def test_nonexistent_command():
    # Test with a command that does not exist
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command('nonexistentcommand')

def test_empty_command_string():
    # Test with an empty command string
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command('')

def test_command_with_spaces():
    # Test with a command that has spaces in it
    # Assuming 'my tool.exe' exists
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command('my tool')

def test_special_characters_in_command():
    # Test with a command that has special characters
    # Assuming '[email protected]' exists
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command('command@123')

def test_permission_issues():
    # Simulate permission issues by checking a command that exists but is inaccessible
    # This test assumes that 'restrictedcommand' is a command with restricted permissions
    # Since we cannot actually change file permissions in this test, we rely on the fallback behavior
    codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command('restrictedcommand')

def test_large_number_of_commands():
    # Test performance with a large number of commands
    commands = [f'cmd{i}' for i in range(1000)]
    for command in commands:
        # Assuming none of these commands exist
        codeflash_output = get_windows_executable_command(command)
# codeflash_output is used to check that the output of the original code is the same as that of the optimized code.

from src.mcp.client.stdio.win32 import get_windows_executable_command

def test_get_windows_executable_command():
    get_windows_executable_command('')

def test_get_windows_executable_command_2():
    get_windows_executable_command('[')

To edit these changes git checkout codeflash/optimize-get_windows_executable_command-ma2xrxku and push.

Codeflash

Certainly! Let’s analyze the profiling results and rewrite the function for speed.

### Profiling Analysis

- The **`shutil.which` calls dominate runtime**—especially the ones inside the extension loop (almost 79% of the time).
- Creating formatted strings for each extension and calling `shutil.which` serially is inefficient.

### Optimization Approach

- **Cut redundant lookups**: Use the `shutil.which` “PATHEXT” search feature, which *already* tries `.COM;.EXE;.BAT;.CMD` (and others based on system configuration). On Windows, `shutil.which('foo')` automatically checks extensions given by the `PATHEXT` environment variable.
- Only need to call `shutil.which(command)`—no need for a manual extension loop in most cases.
- As an extra safety, can manually try Case 2 (explicit extensions—e.g., `.ps1` is not always in PATHEXT), but only if the first call fails.

### Optimized Code



### Summary of Changes

- **Removed the slow extension loop**; rely on `shutil.which` (leverages `PATHEXT`).
- Only falls back to `.ps1` search if normal search fails (optional, if really needed).
- Fewer calls, less string formatting, much less repeated work; this will **run a lot faster, especially under heavy load or many queries**.

Let me know if you want further Windows-specific fine-tuning!
@codeflash-ai codeflash-ai Bot added the ⚡️ codeflash Optimization PR opened by Codeflash AI label Apr 29, 2025
@codeflash-ai codeflash-ai Bot requested a review from Saga4 April 29, 2025 20:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

⚡️ codeflash Optimization PR opened by Codeflash AI

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

0 participants