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.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
--
-Todd
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
