On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@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 <ztur...@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.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think I know how to fix. Trying now.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@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 <ztur...@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 <ztur...@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 <ztur...@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.fi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@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 <
>>>>>>>>> ztur...@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 <
>>>>>>>>>> ztur...@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@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.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Todd Fiala <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> todd.fi...@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@lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> -Todd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -Todd
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -Todd
>
--
-Todd
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
