[libcxx] [llvm] [libc++] Add tools for gathering historical benchmark data (PR #212775)

[Nikolas Klauser via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -0,0 +1,483 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+# ===----------------------------------------------------------------------===##
+#
+# Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
+# See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
+#
+# ===----------------------------------------------------------------------===##
+
+from typing import Dict, List, NamedTuple, Optional, Sequence, TextIO
+import argparse
+import json
+import logging
+import pathlib
+import re
+import subprocess
+import sys
+import tabulate
+import urllib.parse
+
+
+class WorkItem(NamedTuple):
+    """
+    One line of the plan as produced by `plan-benchmarks`.
+    """
+    commit: str
+    machine: str
+    samples_have: int
+    samples_want: int
+    reason: str = ''
+
+    @staticmethod
+    def parse(line: str) -> 'WorkItem':
+        """
+        Read one line of a plan, validating every field.
+
+        A plan is normally produced by `plan-benchmarks`, but it can also be
+        hand-written, so we are careful about validating the data here.
+        """
+        item = json.loads(line)
+        if not isinstance(item, dict):
+            raise ValueError(f'expected a JSON object, got {type(item).__name__}')
+
+        def field(name: str, types, required: bool = True, default=None):
+            if name not in item:
+                if required:
+                    raise ValueError(f'missing required field {name}')
+                return default
+            value = item[name]
+            if isinstance(value, bool) or not isinstance(value, types):
----------------
philnik777 wrote:

Why do we check against `bool` specifically?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/212775