labath added inline comments.
================
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test_event/formatter/pickled.py:57
@@ +56,3 @@
+ # end.
+ if self.use_send:
+ # Send it as
{serialized_length_of_serialized_bytes}{serialized_bytes}
----------------
tfiala wrote:
> tfiala wrote:
> > labath wrote:
> > > Why do we need the format to be different based on the kind of object we
> > > are writing to? The added magic (introspection) seems like a bad
> > > tradeoff, if all it does is avoid a couple of lines in
> > > `event_collector.py`
> > When we're using sockets, we have to be able to know the size of the full
> > info when reconstructing on the receiving side. This is the normal mode in
> > which this is used. However, that also complicates the parsing of the data
> > for the simple test driver.
> >
> > The code later on in the test_event unit tests:
> >
> > ```
> > if os.path.exists(pickled_events_filename()):
> > with open(pickled_events_filename(), "rb") as events_file:
> > while True:
> > try:
> > # print("reading event")
> > event = cPickle.load(events_file)
> > # print("read event: {}".format(event))
> > if event:
> > events.append(event)
> > except EOFError:
> > # This is okay.
> > Break
> > ```
> >
> > Would get considerably more complicated to deal with the same format that
> > is only required for going over a network-style protocol. I prefer this
> > tradeoff. In the unit tests, I just send the event output to a file, and
> > then read it with the simple loop I included above.
> >
> > However, to verify that I really prefer it, I will try writing it the other
> > way.
> > However, to verify that I really prefer it, I will try writing it the other
> > way.
>
> The flip side is I can try to factor out the listener side logic that
> reconstructs these. However, that is currently rather tightly coupled to the
> network listening transport. And most of the work it does has purely to do
> with needing to receive the whole message before it can try to un-pickle it.
> So I'm not really seeing that as a big win. (Except for testability. So
> maybe it's okay to break that out.) I'll see what that looks like since that
> is probably the better high-level way to handle this if we didn't want the
> change I made to the sender side.
The other alternative I see is to make pass in a "serializer" object (or a
lambda or something), which knows how to write to the right output. Then, you
can construct the correct serializer object depending on whether you got passed
`--results-file` or `--results-port`.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20193
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
