Hi Jacob,

On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 10:09:18 -0800
Jacob Keller <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 1/28/2026 8:50 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
> > ---  
> 
> What is this patch trying to do? the title is not descriptive, and its 
> contents don't make sense.
> 
> >   tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py | 16 +---------------
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py 
> > b/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py
> > index e438472fa704..3cf1075b1de4 100755
> > --- a/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py
> > +++ b/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py
> > @@ -8,21 +8,7 @@
> >   Helper class to better display unittest results.
> >   
> >   Those help functions provide a nice colored output summary of each
> > -executed test and, when a test fails, it shows the different in diff
> > -format when running in verbose mode, like::
> > -
> > -    $ tools/unittests/nested_match.py -v
> > -    ...
> > -    Traceback (most recent call last):
> > -    File "/new_devel/docs/tools/unittests/nested_match.py", line 69, in 
> > test_count_limit
> > -        self.assertEqual(replaced, "bar(a); bar(b); foo(c)")
> > -        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > -    AssertionError: 'bar(a) foo(b); foo(c)' != 'bar(a); bar(b); foo(c)'
> > -    - bar(a) foo(b); foo(c)
> > -    ?       ^^^^
> > -    + bar(a); bar(b); foo(c)
> > -    ?       ^^^^^
> > -    ...
> > +executed test.
> >     
> 
> You delete a bunch of the output here, but don't explain why. If this 
> part of the doc is no longer valid this should be squashed into whatever 
> patch made it invalid. I suspect this is the result of the new wrapper 
> you added?

This patch came from a tool I wrote about one year ago for my own
personal usage. 

It was meant to be merged with patch 21/25, as it cleans up
the module description. I ended removing a function that was
requiring:

        from difflib import unified_diff

as it was unused, but, a second look at it, I guess we can just
drop this patch, as this is plain unittest output.

Anyway, I'll handle it either way at the next version.

Thanks,
Mauro

Reply via email to