[lldb-dev] New test summary results formatter

Zachary Turner via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Dec 2 14:10:45 PST 2015 

BTW, this is what I do in the swig service, and I think it's the idiomatic
way of sending variable length data over a socket.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:08 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> I think the best solution is going to be to use struct.pack.  Like this on
> the writing side:
>
>         import struct
>         msg = cPickle.dumps(test_event)
>         packet = struct.pack("!I%ds" % len(msg), len(msg), msg)
>         self.out_file.send(packet)
>
> and like this on the reading side:
>
>                 self.packet_bytes_remaining = struct.unpack("!I",
> self.header_contents)[0]
>                 self.header_contents = b""
>                 self.reading_header = False
>                 return data[(index+1):]
>
> The current solution still doesn't work because it's calling socket.send()
> with a str instead of a bytes.  So it has to be bytes all the way through.
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:48 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Those fixes are up here:
>> r254550
>>
>> Let me know what you see after that, Zachary.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you try making those changes in the other spots?  There's a handful
>>>> of code you have probably not ever run if you haven't selected running with
>>>> a test results formatter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm actually going to make the ibuffer ones now since it's easier for me
>>> to verify that it doesn't break the non-Windows side since I'm right in
>>> there now.  If that doesn't do it, we'll need to see what else doesn't work.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If not, I can try to address them tonight or tomorrow night when I can
>>>> get to some kind of python 3 setup.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yea I was messing around with it too.  I don't have a fix yet but I
>>>>> think you will need to either encode the pickled data as utf8, or better
>>>>> yet, don't write this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "{}#{}".format(...)
>>>>>
>>>>> because pickled data is supposed to be binary data anyway.  So use
>>>>> bytes.append() instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then on the other side in dotest_channels, there's a couple places
>>>>> where you do something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> self.ibuffer = ""
>>>>>
>>>>> which would need to change to
>>>>>
>>>>> self.ibuffer = b""
>>>>>
>>>>> and any other similar operations on self.ibuffer which assume string
>>>>> data.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:33 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I know how to fix.  Trying now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think I can fix the issue without you debugging.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Getting the single pass test runner to use it isn't impossible but
>>>>>>> will take some work.  Can you direct-send me the backtrace from the point
>>>>>>> of failure from your system?  Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there any way to force the single process test runner to use
>>>>>>>> this same system?  I'm trying to debug the problem, but this codepath
>>>>>>>> doesn't execute in the single process test runner, and it executes in the
>>>>>>>> child process in the multiprocess test runner.  Basically I need the
>>>>>>>> following callstack to execute in the single process test runner:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Command invoked: C:\Python35\python_d.exe
>>>>>>>> D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\test\dotest.py -q --arch=i686 --executable
>>>>>>>> D:/src/llvmbuild/ninja_py35/bin/lldb.exe -s
>>>>>>>> D:/src/llvmbuild/ninja_py35/lldb-test-traces -u CXXFLAGS -u CFLAGS
>>>>>>>> --enable-crash-dialog -C d:\src\llvmbuild\ninja_release\bin\clang.exe
>>>>>>>> --results-port 60794 --inferior -p TestIntegerTypesExpr.py
>>>>>>>> D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test --event-add-entries
>>>>>>>> worker_index=7:int
>>>>>>>> 411 out of 412 test suites processed - TestIntegerTypesExpr.py
>>>>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>>>>>>   File "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\test\dotest.py", line 7, in <module>
>>>>>>>>     lldbsuite.test.run_suite()
>>>>>>>>   File
>>>>>>>> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\dotest.py", line
>>>>>>>> 1476, in run_suite
>>>>>>>>     setupTestResults()
>>>>>>>>   File
>>>>>>>> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\dotest.py", line
>>>>>>>> 982, in setupTestResults
>>>>>>>>     results_formatter_object.handle_event(initialize_event)
>>>>>>>>   File
>>>>>>>> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\test_results.py",
>>>>>>>> line 1033, in handle_event
>>>>>>>>     "{}#{}".format(len(pickled_message), pickled_message))
>>>>>>>> TypeError: a bytes-like object is required, not 'str'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:40 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I run this under Python 3 I get "A bytes object is used like
>>>>>>>>> a string" on Line 1033 of test_results.py.  I'm going to dig into it a
>>>>>>>>> little bit, but maybe you know off the top of your head the right way to
>>>>>>>>> fix it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:32 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh yea, I made up that decorator idea because I didn't know all
>>>>>>>>>> the formatters were derived from a common base.  But your idea is better if
>>>>>>>>>> everything is derived from a common base.  To be honest you could even just
>>>>>>>>>> generate an error if there are two ResultsFormatter derived classes in the
>>>>>>>>>> same module.  We should be encouraging more smaller files with single
>>>>>>>>>> responsibility.  One of the things I plan to do as part of some cleanup in
>>>>>>>>>> a week or two is to split up dotest, dosep, and lldbtest.py into a couple
>>>>>>>>>> different files by breaking out things like TestBase, etc into separate
>>>>>>>>>> files.  So that it's easier to keep a mental map of where different code is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:26 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Todd Fiala <
>>>>>>>>>>> todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah I'd be good with that.  I can change that as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Zachary Turner <
>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also another stylistic suggestion.  I've been thinking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to more logically organize all the source files now that we have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> package.  So it makes sense conceptually to group all of the different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> result formatters under a subpackage called formatters.  So right now
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you've got lldbsuite.test.basic_results_formatter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BasicResultsFormatter but it might make sense for this to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lldbsuite.test.formatters.basic.BasicResultsFormatter.  If you do things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this way, it can actually result in a substantially shorter command line,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the --results-formatter option can use lldbsuite.test.formatters as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a starting point.  So you could instead write:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> test/dotest.py --results-formatter basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dotest then looks for a `basic.py` module in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> `lldbsuite.test.formatters` package, looks for a class inside with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @result_formatter decorator, and instantiates that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has the advantage of making the command line shorter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *and* a more logical source file organization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The other thing that could allow me to do is possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> short-circuit the results formatter specifier so that, if just the module
>>>>>>>>>>> is specified, and if the module only has one ResultsFormatter-derived
>>>>>>>>>>> class, I can probably rig up code that figures out the right results
>>>>>>>>>>> formatter, shortening the required discriminator to something even shorter
>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e. module.classname becomes just module.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:04 AM Zachary Turner <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can --results-file=stdout be the default so that we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to specify that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:02 AM Todd Fiala via lldb-dev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, all the text in the summary is fixed-width lined up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nicely, which may not show in the commit message description if you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using a variable-width font.  On a terminal it looks nice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Todd Fiala <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Todd Fiala <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just put up an optional test results formatter that is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prototype of what we may move towards for our default test summary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results.  It went in here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> r254530
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you can try it out with something like:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time test/dotest.py --executable `pwd`/build/Debug/lldb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --results-formatter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lldbsuite.test.basic_results_formatter.BasicResultsFormatter --results-file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cut and paste my line, but more than likely for most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people you'd just want this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test/dotest.py --results-formatter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lldbsuite.test.basic_results_formatter.BasicResultsFormatter --results-file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stdout
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other stuff was specific to my setup.  That line
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumes you run from the lldb source dir root.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if this satisfies the basic needs of counts and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatnot.  It counts test method runs rather than all the oddball "file,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class, etc." counts we had before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It prints out the Details section when there are details,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and keeps it nice and clean when there are none.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also mentions a bit about test reruns up top, but that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't come into play until I get the multi-test-pass,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single-worker/low-load mechanism in place, which will depend on newer rerun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count awareness support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The change also cleans up places where the test event
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> framework was using string codes and replaces them with symbolic constants.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know what you think.  I can tweak it as needed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address testbot and other needs.  Once it looks reasonable, I'd like to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move over to using it by default in the parallel test runner rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the legacy support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lldb-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -Todd
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Todd
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151202/01ee5458/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list