[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 6c4fa9559b7e by Nadeem Vawda in branch 'default': Update README section on testing following issue #11651. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/6c4fa9559b7e -- ___ Python tracker

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Changes by Nadeem Vawda : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> committed/rejected status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset c68a80779434 by Nadeem Vawda in branch 'default': Issue #11651: Move options for running tests into a Python script. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/c68a80779434 -- ___ Python tracker

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: The latest patch looks ok to me. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubs

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Nadeem Vawda added the comment: Updated patch attached. >> Some notes: >> - By doing things this way, we lose the ability to specify custom arguments >> to >> the interpreter with $(TESTPYTHONOPTS). Might this be a problem? > > Yes, some buildbots use it. Can't you add support for it in the

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > What changes do you suggest? Not sure, I never use it. But test_concurrent_futures is not in the list for example. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Nadeem Vawda added the comment: What changes do you suggest? -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > > As an aside, the "quicktest" would probably deserve an update. > > How so? Should it perhaps use "-u none"? No, I meant the list of tests that it disables. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Nadeem Vawda added the comment: >> Some notes: >> - By doing things this way, we lose the ability to specify custom arguments >> to >> the interpreter with $(TESTPYTHONOPTS). Might this be a problem? > > Yes, some buildbots use it. Can't you add support for it in the test > runner? Working o

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: As an aside, the "quicktest" would probably deserve an update. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > Some notes: > - By doing things this way, we lose the ability to specify custom arguments to > the interpreter with $(TESTPYTHONOPTS). Might this be a problem? Yes, some buildbots use it. Can't you add support for it in the test runner? > - The "test" and

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Nadeem Vawda added the comment: > I have attached a Python script which does what Antoine's patch does except > which is expected to live in Tools/scripts. The perk of doing this in a > Python script is that Windows users will be able to simply execute the script > while the Makefile can be made

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset b76684d62a8d by Nadeem Vawda in branch 'default': Issue #11651: Improve Makefile test targets. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b76684d62a8d -- nosy: +python-dev ___ Python tracker

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Changes by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis : -- nosy: +Arfrever ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscri

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Nadeem Vawda added the comment: Looking at the actual times with -j0, I don't think there is any need to keep quicktest - with the removal of the duplicate test, I can do a full run in 3m16s (on a debug build; non-debug takes 1m54s), which seems plenty fast enough. One thing I noticed about the

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Brett Cannon added the comment: I have attached a Python script which does what Antoine's patch does except which is expected to live in Tools/scripts. The perk of doing this in a Python script is that Windows users will be able to simply execute the script while the Makefile can be made to e

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: I committed the "-j0" part of the patch in d8dd7ab6039d. Brett made the point on #python-dev that a Makefile change doesn't help Windows users. Instead, we may have a Python script somewhere that both "make test" and "make quicktest" call. -- nosy: +

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Ross Lagerwall added the comment: The patch seems to work. I agree that quicktest and memtest should be removed as well as the duplicate test. The only thing I would change is to create the number of jobs to be double the cpu count - I think this works quicker. I don't think the length of t

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Barry A. Warsaw added the comment: On Mar 23, 2011, at 04:22 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >What does "brown paper bag way" mean? It seems to be some kind of urban >legend at this point. A merge won't magically break all C files and >prevent Python from compiling. Especially if no C files were touc

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > You've now merged any changes that have come in since you did your thorough > tests, and you're trying to beat the other guy to the push. You want > something that can run *fast* and just proves that the merge didn't hose > Python in some brown paper bag way.

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Barry A. Warsaw added the comment: On Mar 23, 2011, at 04:06 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >Sorry, that's completely bogus. If a "merge race" may introduce a regression, >then there's no reason the regression will occur in the non-blacklisted >tests. Have you heard of Murphy's law? That's not the

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > Is there any reason not to add "-j0" for testall as well? Have you looked at the patch? :) > Are these really necessary in a push-race, > post-local-merge, does Python crash-and-burn case? Yes, they are. If they are not significant, they should be removed.

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Nadeem Vawda added the comment: >- when "-j0" is passed to regrtest, use the cpu count detected by >multiprocessing >- remove the duplicate test in "make test" >- add "-j0" to the test options in make test +1. The duplicate test seems quite wasteful (outside of testall). Is there any reason no

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Barry A. Warsaw added the comment: On Mar 23, 2011, at 03:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> test_mmap >> test_shelve >> test_posix >> test_largefile >> test_concurrent_futures > >Why would you blacklist these tests? They are useful. Please keep in mind the use case. Are these really necessary i

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > I propose instead to change 'make quicktest' to use -j(N>1) and blacklist the > following tests: > > test_mmap > test_shelve > test_posix > test_largefile > test_concurrent_futures Why would you blacklist these tests? They are useful. I agree with Skip's la

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

Barry A. Warsaw added the comment: I propose instead to change 'make quicktest' to use -j(N>1) and blacklist the following tests: test_mmap test_shelve test_posix test_largefile test_concurrent_futures Then (for me) it runs in 3m20s wall clock time which is totally reasonable and I think als

[issue11651] Improve test targets in Makefile

New submission from Antoine Pitrou : Summary: - remove "make quicktest" and "make memtest" - when "-j0" is passed to regrtest, use the cpu count detected by multiprocessing - remove the duplicate test in "make test" - add "-j0" to the test options in make test The patch is against default but p