[lldb-dev] Separating test runner and tests

Zachary Turner via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Dec 11 11:18:37 PST 2015 

Also at some point I will probably want to kill unittest2 and move to the
upstream unittest.  AFAICT we only use unittest2 because it works on 2.6
and unittest doesn't.  But now that we're ok with saying 2.6 is
unsupported, we can in theory go to the upstream unittest.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:17 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> Not sure I follow.  Are you trying to test the execution engine itself
> (dotest.py, lldbtest.py, etc) or are you trying to have another alternative
> to running individual tests?  The
>
> if __name__ == "__main__":
>     unittest.main() stuff
>
> was deleted deleted from all tests a few months ago as part of the package
> re-organization, and I thought I had general consensus at the time that
> that was ok to do.
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:13 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It just requires running the test file as a python script.
>>
>> The runner is fired off like this:
>>
>> if __name__ == "__main__":
>>     unittest.main()
>>
>> which is typically added to the bottom of all test files so you can call
>> it directly.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Unittest.
>>>
>>> Comes with Python.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Presumably those tests use an entirely different, hand-rolled test
>>>> running infrastructure?
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:52 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One thing I want to make sure we can do is have a sane way of storing
>>>>> and running tests that  test the test execution engine.  Those are tests
>>>>> that should not run as part of an "lldb test run".  These are tests that
>>>>> maintainers of the test system run to make sure we're not breaking stuff
>>>>> when we touch the test system.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be writing more of those if I had a semi-sane way of doing it.
>>>>>  (Part of the reason I broke out the python-based timeout logic the way I
>>>>> did, before the major packaging changes, was so I had an obvious spot to
>>>>> add tests for the process runner logic).
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I like it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yea wasn't planning on doing this today, just throwing the idea out
>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:35 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm fine with the idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FWIW the test events model will likely shift a bit, as it is
>>>>>>>> currently a single sink, whereas I am likely to turn it into a test event
>>>>>>>> filter chain shortly here.  Formatters still make sense as they'll be the
>>>>>>>> things at the end of the chain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Minor detail, result_formatter.py should be results_formatter.py -
>>>>>>>> they are ResultsFormatter instances (plural on Results since it transforms
>>>>>>>> a series of results into coherent reported output).  I'll rename that at
>>>>>>>> some point in the near future, but if you shift a number of things around,
>>>>>>>> you can do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm just about done with the multi-pass running.  I expect to get
>>>>>>>> an opt-in version of that running end of day today or worst case on
>>>>>>>> Sunday.  It would be awesome if you can hold off on any significant change
>>>>>>>> like that until this little bit is done as I'm sure we'll collide,
>>>>>>>> particularly since this hits dosep.py pretty significantly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev <
>>>>>>>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. A couple of tiny remarks:
>>>>>>>>> - when you do the move, you might as well rename dotest into
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> else, just to avoid the "which dotest should I run" type of
>>>>>>>>> questions...
>>>>>>>>> - there is nothing that makes it obvious that "engine" is actually
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> "test running engine", as it sits in a sibling folder. OTOH,
>>>>>>>>> "test_engine" might be too verbose, and messes up tab completion,
>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>> that might not be a good idea either...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> pl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10 December 2015 at 23:30, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
>>>>>>>>> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > Currently our folder structure looks like this:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > lldbsuite
>>>>>>>>> > |-- test
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- dotest.py
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- dosep.py
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- lldbtest.py
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- ...
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- functionalities
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- lang
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- expression_command
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- ...
>>>>>>>>> > etc
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I've been thinking about organizing it like this instead:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > lldbsuite
>>>>>>>>> > |-- test
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- functionalities
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- lang
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- expression_command
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- ...
>>>>>>>>> > |-- engine
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- dotest.py
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- dosep.py
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- lldbtest.py
>>>>>>>>> >     |-- ...
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Anybody have any thoughts on this?  Good idea or bad idea?  The
>>>>>>>>> main reason
>>>>>>>>> > I want to do this is because as we start breaking up some of the
>>>>>>>>> code, it
>>>>>>>>> > makes sense to start having some subpackages under the `engine`
>>>>>>>>> folder (or
>>>>>>>>> > the `test` folder in our current world).  For example, Todd and
>>>>>>>>> I have
>>>>>>>>> > discussed the idea of putting formatter related stuff under a
>>>>>>>>> `formatters`
>>>>>>>>> > subpackage.  In the current world, there's no way to
>>>>>>>>> differentiate between
>>>>>>>>> > folders which contain tests and folders which contain test
>>>>>>>>> infrastructure,
>>>>>>>>> > so when we walk the directory tree looking for tests we end up
>>>>>>>>> walking a
>>>>>>>>> > bunch of directories that are used for test infrastructure code
>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>> > actual tests.  So I like the logical separation this provides --
>>>>>>>>> having the
>>>>>>>>> > tests themselves all under a single subpackage.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Todd
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151211/0aae8c1c/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list