[benchmark] Adjust new tests to Naming Convention

Most of these recently added benchmarks have too low loop multiplier that results in near zero or zero measured runtime.

Since fixing this will change the runtimes, it is also an opportunity to properly apply the new naming convention.

Author: palimondo

benchmark/single-source/SetTests.swift

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ let setQ: Set<Int> = {
 public let SetTests = [
   // Mnemonic: number after name is percentage of common elements in input sets.
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "Set.Empty.IsSubsetInt0",
+    name: "Set.isSubset.Empty.Int0",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetIsSubsetInt(setE, setAB, true, 5000 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setE, setAB]) }),
@@ -94,46 +94,46 @@ public let SetTests = [
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setP, setQ]) }),
 
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "Set.Empty.IsDisjointInt0",
+    name: "Set.isDisjoint.Empty.Int0",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetIsDisjointInt(setE, setAB, true, 50 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setE, setAB]) }),
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "Set.Empty.IsDisjointBox0",
+    name: "Set.isDisjoint.Empty.Box0",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetIsDisjointBox(setOE, setOAB, true, 50 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setOE, setOAB]) }),
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "SetIsDisjointInt0",
+    name: "Set.isDisjoint.Int0",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetIsDisjointInt(setAB, setCD, true, 50 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setAB, setCD]) }),
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "SetIsDisjointBox0",
+    name: "Set.isDisjoint.Box0",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetIsDisjointBox(setOAB, setOCD, true, 50 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setOAB, setOCD]) }),
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "SetIsDisjointInt25",
+    name: "Set.isDisjoint.Int25",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetIsDisjointInt(setB, setAB, false, 50 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setB, setAB]) }),
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "SetIsDisjointBox25",
+    name: "Set.isDisjoint.Box25",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetIsDisjointBox(setOB, setOAB, false, 50 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setOB, setOAB]) }),
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "SetIsDisjointInt50",
+    name: "Set.isDisjoint.Int50",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetIsDisjointInt(setY, setXY, false, 50 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setY, setXY]) }),
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "SetIsDisjointInt100",
+    name: "Set.isDisjoint.Int100",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetIsDisjointInt(setP, setQ, false, 50 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setP, setQ]) }),
-  
+
   BenchmarkInfo(
     name: "SetSymmetricDifferenceInt0",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetSymmetricDifferenceInt(setAB, setCD, countABCD, 10 * n) },
@@ -228,12 +228,12 @@ public let SetTests = [
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setP, setQ]) }),
 
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "Set.Empty.SubtractingInt0",
+    name: "Set.subtracting.Empty.Int0",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetSubtractingInt(setE, setAB, 0, 10 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setE, setAB]) }),
   BenchmarkInfo(
-    name: "Set.Empty.SubtractingBox0",
+    name: "Set.subtracting.Empty.Box0",
     runFunction: { n in run_SetSubtractingBox(setOE, setOAB, 0, 10 * n) },
     tags: [.validation, .api, .Set],
     setUpFunction: { blackHole([setOE, setOAB]) }),