[lldb-dev] New test summary results formatter

Zachary Turner via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Dec 2 16:07:25 PST 2015 

In other words, instead of printing this:

FAIL:
TestDataFormatterPythonSynth.PythonSynthDataFormatterTestCase.test_rdar10960550_with_run_command_dwo
(D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\functionalities\data-formatter\data-formatter-python-synth\TestDataFormatterPythonSynth.py)

Print this:

FAIL: TestDataFormatterPythonSynth.test_rdar10960550_with_run_command_dwo
(functionalities\data-formatter\data-formatter-python-synth\TestDataFormatterPythonSynth.py)

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:59 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> Now that it's working in Python 3 and I've had a chance to see the output,
> I think I like it much better.  These are the things I noticed (good and
> bad):
>
> 1) Output of each test is printed on the fly as the test is run.  Much
> better than staring at a black screen for 5 minutes and then seeing a bunch
> of junk fly by.
> 2) Summary output is organized by test function, not by file.  This gives
> better counts.
> 3) Behavior seems different somehow.  My successes / failures / unexpected
> successes seem different when using this formatter.  I'll have to look into
> this to figure out if it's just my imagination or something's actually
> wrong.
>
> Will this abstraction of a result formatter provide some way to make a
> formatter intended for machine consumption?  Right now lots of people
> scrape logs for the purposes of build bots, and it would be better if we
> could just dump the results as json or something.
>
> Only suggestion I have at this point is that in the summary printout the
> lines are too long.  Long test name (module.classname.function) and long
> filename.  Perhaps the filename could be converted to a relative path and
> the classname could be dropped (there's only one class per file anyway, so
> the classname is just wasted space)
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All good.
>>
>> Yeah Python 2/3 string/byte handling is one of the trickier areas of
>> cross-Python version compatibility.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  think I got something working, I'll upload a patch in a few.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:10 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Todd
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151203/75fc6dd5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list