[lldb-dev] Moving pexpect and unittest2 to lldb/third_party

[Todd Fiala via lldb-dev]

I'd be okay with that.

The unittest2 stuff looks like it was a vestige of being incorporated
before unittest2 was stock (unitest) on Python 2.[6,7]?.  Everyone should
have a unitest included that is effectively what we use as unittest2.

-Todd

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> I plan to put this in today.  Greg, should I just go ahead and delete all
> the unittest2 stuff entirely?  TBH I'm all for anything that reduces the
> complexity of the test suite.  It's got a couple hundred options that
> nobody uses, seems like we should start whittling away at stuff that
> doesn't get any use.
>
> If you prefer I leave it in that's less work for me since I have that
> patch ready to go, but TBH I'd rather remove it if that's ok.
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:50 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>
>> You can get pretty much the same effect though by just running dotest and
>> passing it the folder that the .py file is in.   Then it only runs tests in
>> that folder.  You can specify the filename too if you want to limit it to
>> one name.  Sure, it's a few keystrokes less to just type
>> TestMultithreaded.py or something, but given the extra complexity and the
>> fact that it's running a totally different codepath, I wonder if the
>> maintenance burden is worth it (I'm guessing no, since apparently it
>> doesn't work well enough right now for anyone to use it)
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:47 AM Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe it would import lldb correctly. I don't tend to run the tests
>>> individually, but if it did work, I would use it more.
>>>
>>> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev <
>>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Todd, Greg, can you guys confirm this is true?   The import lldb would
>>> succeed if someone had their PYTHONPATH set up just right, but if really
>>> none of us care about it, I'm with Tamas in that I'd rather remove it.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:55 AM Tamas Berghammer <
>>> tberghammer at google.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi Zach,
>>> >
>>> > I think nobody is using the "if __name__ == '__main__'" block as
>>> executing a test file directly isn't working at the moment (the "import
>>> lldb" command fails). If you plan to change all test file then I would
>>> prefer to remove the reference to unittest2 from them for simplicity if
>>> nobody have an objection against it.
>>> >
>>> > Tamas
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:57 PM Zachary Turner via lldb-dev <
>>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> > TL;DR - Nobody has to do anything, this is just a heads up that a 400+
>>> file CL is coming.
>>> >
>>> > IANAL, but I've been told by one that I need to move all third party
>>> code used by LLDB to lldb/third_party.  Currently there is only one thing
>>> there: the Python `six` module used for creating code that is portable
>>> across Python 2 and Python 3.
>>> >
>>> > The only other 2 instances that I'm aware of are pexpect and
>>> unittest2, which are under lldb/test.  I've got some patches locally which
>>> move pexpect and unittest2 to lldb/third_party.  I'll hold off on checking
>>> them in for a bit to give people a chance to see this message first,
>>> because otherwise you might be surprised when you see a CL with 400 files
>>> being checked in.
>>> >
>>> > Nobody will have to do anything after this CL goes in, and everything
>>> should continue to work exactly as it currently does.
>>> >
>>> > The main reason for the churn is that pretty much every single test in
>>> LLDB does something like this:
>>> >
>>> > import unittest2
>>> >
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> > if __name__ == '__main__':
>>> >     import atexit
>>> >     lldb.SBDebugger.Initialize()
>>> >     atexit.register(lambda: lldb.SBDebugger.Terminate())
>>> >     unittest2.main()
>>> >
>>> > This worked when unittest2 was a subfolder of test, but not when it's
>>> somewhere else.  Since LLDB's python code is not organized into a standard
>>> python package and we treat the scripts like dotest etc as standalone
>>> scripts, the way I've made this work is by introducing a module called
>>> lldb_shared under test which, when you import it, fixes up sys.path to
>>> correctly add all the right locations under lldb/third_party.
>>> >
>>> > So, every single test now needs a line at the top to import
>>> lldb_shared.
>>> >
>>> > TBH I don't even know if we need this unittest2 stuff anymore (does
>>> anyone even use it?)  but even if the answer is no, then that still means
>>> changing every file to delete the import statement and the if __name__ ==
>>> '__main__': block.
>>> >
>>> > If there are no major concerns I plan to check this in by the end of
>>> the day, or tomorrow.
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > lldb-dev mailing list
>>> > lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > lldb-dev mailing list
>>> > lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
>


-- 
-Todd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151022/08ad0553/attachment.html>