This is going in right now. As it is a fairly large change, it wouldn't surprise me if someone encounters an issue. I tested this everywhere I can and it seems fine, so please let me know if anyone encounters anything.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:39 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah I think the biggest thing I wanted to check there was that there > wasn't any unittest2 behavior present in that cut of unittest2 that didn't > make it into the revamped version brought into the python distributions > when they upgraded unittest. Then it's just a big rename exercise on > replacing unittest2 with unittest (again, after making sure that my > expectations here are correct on this being valid). > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> > wrote: > >> Cool! I probably won't delete it from the repo entirely, because that >> entails mucking with the command line options of dotest to remove any >> related options, and any initialization code in dotest.py or TestBase >> subclasses related to unittest2. For now I'll just delete the imports from >> each individual test and remove the if __name__ == "main" blocks. After >> that though it should be a fairly straightforward follow-up to remove it >> entirely if anyone wants to. >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:30 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> (I was eventually going to do this at some point after I verified it was >>> indeed true). It should just be called unittest in a stock distribution. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> We could also then remove unittest2 from inclusion in the lldb repo. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd be okay with that. >>>>> >>>>> The unittest2 stuff looks like it was a vestige of being incorporated >>>>> before unittest2 was stock (unitest) on Python 2.[6,7]?. Everyone should >>>>> have a unitest included that is effectively what we use as unittest2. >>>>> >>>>> -Todd >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < >>>>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I plan to put this in today. Greg, should I just go ahead and delete >>>>>> all the unittest2 stuff entirely? TBH I'm all for anything that reduces >>>>>> the complexity of the test suite. It's got a couple hundred options that >>>>>> nobody uses, seems like we should start whittling away at stuff that >>>>>> doesn't get any use. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you prefer I leave it in that's less work for me since I have that >>>>>> patch ready to go, but TBH I'd rather remove it if that's ok. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:50 AM Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You can get pretty much the same effect though by just running >>>>>>> dotest and passing it the folder that the .py file is in. Then it only >>>>>>> runs tests in that folder. You can specify the filename too if you >>>>>>> want to >>>>>>> limit it to one name. Sure, it's a few keystrokes less to just type >>>>>>> TestMultithreaded.py or something, but given the extra complexity and >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> fact that it's running a totally different codepath, I wonder if the >>>>>>> maintenance burden is worth it (I'm guessing no, since apparently it >>>>>>> doesn't work well enough right now for anyone to use it) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:47 AM Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe it would import lldb correctly. I don't tend to run the >>>>>>>> tests individually, but if it did work, I would use it more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < >>>>>>>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Todd, Greg, can you guys confirm this is true? The import lldb >>>>>>>> would succeed if someone had their PYTHONPATH set up just right, but if >>>>>>>> really none of us care about it, I'm with Tamas in that I'd rather >>>>>>>> remove >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:55 AM Tamas Berghammer < >>>>>>>> tbergham...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> > Hi Zach, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I think nobody is using the "if __name__ == '__main__'" block as >>>>>>>> executing a test file directly isn't working at the moment (the "import >>>>>>>> lldb" command fails). If you plan to change all test file then I would >>>>>>>> prefer to remove the reference to unittest2 from them for simplicity if >>>>>>>> nobody have an objection against it. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Tamas >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:57 PM Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < >>>>>>>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> > TL;DR - Nobody has to do anything, this is just a heads up that a >>>>>>>> 400+ file CL is coming. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > IANAL, but I've been told by one that I need to move all third >>>>>>>> party code used by LLDB to lldb/third_party. Currently there is only >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> thing there: the Python `six` module used for creating code that is >>>>>>>> portable across Python 2 and Python 3. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The only other 2 instances that I'm aware of are pexpect and >>>>>>>> unittest2, which are under lldb/test. I've got some patches locally >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> move pexpect and unittest2 to lldb/third_party. I'll hold off on >>>>>>>> checking >>>>>>>> them in for a bit to give people a chance to see this message first, >>>>>>>> because otherwise you might be surprised when you see a CL with 400 >>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>> being checked in. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Nobody will have to do anything after this CL goes in, and >>>>>>>> everything should continue to work exactly as it currently does. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The main reason for the churn is that pretty much every single >>>>>>>> test in LLDB does something like this: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > import unittest2 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > ... >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > if __name__ == '__main__': >>>>>>>> > import atexit >>>>>>>> > lldb.SBDebugger.Initialize() >>>>>>>> > atexit.register(lambda: lldb.SBDebugger.Terminate()) >>>>>>>> > unittest2.main() >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > This worked when unittest2 was a subfolder of test, but not when >>>>>>>> it's somewhere else. Since LLDB's python code is not organized into a >>>>>>>> standard python package and we treat the scripts like dotest etc as >>>>>>>> standalone scripts, the way I've made this work is by introducing a >>>>>>>> module >>>>>>>> called lldb_shared under test which, when you import it, fixes up >>>>>>>> sys.path >>>>>>>> to correctly add all the right locations under lldb/third_party. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > So, every single test now needs a line at the top to import >>>>>>>> lldb_shared. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > TBH I don't even know if we need this unittest2 stuff anymore >>>>>>>> (does anyone even use it?) but even if the answer is no, then that >>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>> means changing every file to delete the import statement and the if >>>>>>>> __name__ == '__main__': block. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > If there are no major concerns I plan to check this in by the end >>>>>>>> of the day, or tomorrow. >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > lldb-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >>>>>>>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > lldb-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >>>>>>>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> lldb-dev mailing list >>>>>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -Todd >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -Todd >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Todd >>> >> > > > -- > -Todd >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev