[lldb-dev] Refactoring dotest as a Python package

Zachary Turner via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Oct 28 10:54:50 PDT 2015

This is in right now (without my proposed change from previous email,
although I can make that as a followup since it's just cleanup)

In any case, let me know if anything blows up.  It took 35 minutes just to
commit, so hopefully any problems that arise can be fixed with localized
patches instead of revert.  Although I'm still open to that if it's really
the only way to get things fixed.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:12 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> Todd, I have one question.  If I understand correctly, we currently run
> dotest.py as a script, which imports dosep and calls some method in dosep,
> and dosep then again exec's dotest.
> Can you think of a pythonic way to make this work under the new layout?
> To be clear, I have it working, just not in a pythonic way.  The problem is
> that if we put code in lldbsuite's __init__.py, then this code won't be
> run when we exec dotest, because we'll be running it as a script instead of
> importing it as a package.  __init__.py is a very handy way to run some
> per-package initialization, so I'd like to be able to take advantage of it.
> The way I currently have it working is just write `import lldbsuite` at
> the top of dotest.py, but that seems a little arbitrary that a file can't
> be exec'ed unless it imports the package that it's supposed to be contained
> in.
> So to re-iterate: the problem is that under the new layout the user will
> run lldb/test/dotest.py, but dosep will try to exec
> lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py, which is intended to be
> imported as a package.
> What if we have dosep instead do this:
> # Execute the same script that the user originall ran from the command
> line,
> # which under this new system will be lldb/test/dotest.py, even though
> dosep
> # and the *real* dotest now reside in lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test
> import __main__ as main
> exec main.__file__
> Can you think of any problem with this?  Another option is to use
> sys.argv[0].  Not sure if there's any practical difference between the two
> methods.
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:29 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>> Ok, I'll do it tomorrow.  Since it's a big code move I was a little
>> worried it would break someone's bot or the Xcode build, but I guess we can
>> deal with issues that pop up afterwards.
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:14 PM Jim Ingham <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
>>> It seems like everybody is okay with the idea of this, so I don't see
>>> the need for a review of the details of this stage.  If you think there's
>>> anything tricky call it out in words, otherwise I say just commit it.
>>> Jim
>>> > On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev <
>>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I have the first part of the patch in, and the second part of the
>>> patch (which is essentially just a whole-folder rename with a couple of
>>> fixups) ready to go.  What's the best way to have this reviewed?  Uploading
>>> a 7MB patch to Phabricator probably isn't going to work out very well.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:40 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I think I have a way to split this into two smaller CLs.  I'm testing
>>> this at the moment, if so it will allow the first CL to be most of the
>>> preparation for the rename without the rename, and then the second CL
>>> should literally just be a straight move with only 1-2 line code change.
>>> So I'll try to put this first CL up for review shortly.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:49 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I've got a patch locally to make all of our Python stuff part of an
>>> lldb package called `lldbsuite`.  Currently we've got a bunch of standalone
>>> scripts that live in various directories such as `lldb/test`, or
>>> `lldb/scripts`, and possibly some  other locations, and this organization
>>> makes it hard to share code because it is incompatible with Python's
>>> built-in code reuse mechanism, which is its package system.
>>> >
>>> > The problem is, this patch is *big*.  Functionally there weren't many
>>> major changes, but it renames the entire test directory.  To be clear, it
>>> still leaves `test/dotest.py` in place, so nobody has to change their
>>> workflow or do anything differently.  If you used to write "cd test &&
>>> dotest.py" you can still do that.  dotest.py is now just a 2 line wrapper
>>> around the package, so it looks like:
>>> >
>>> > import lldbsuite.test
>>> > lldbsuite.test.run_suite()
>>> >
>>> > the advantage of this method is that lldbsuite can contain
>>> subpackages.  It already contains one subpackage, which is lldbsuite.test,
>>> and I plan to move some of the Python code in `lldb/scripts` there as well,
>>> so that we have lldbsuite.scripts.  Then we can add a third submodule,
>>> lldbsuite.shared, and now dotest can share code with scripts, and it gives
>>> us a nice place to put stuff that previously had been copied all around.
>>> >
>>> > It also gives us a nice way to perform module-wide initialization that
>>> we don't have to repeat in every single test, such as writing "import
>>> lldb_shared" at the top of every file, since that can be done as part of
>>> lldbsuite/__init__.py.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > In any case, I have this all working on my machine, but I would like
>>> to see if someone can try my patch out on other platforms.  The size of the
>>> patch presents a problem though - it's over 7MB since it renames a very
>>> large directory.
>>> >
>>> > As usual, comments / concerns also welcome.
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > lldb-dev mailing list
>>> > lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151028/82e80203/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list