On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Dylan Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 04:39:40 PM Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Dylan Baker <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 03:44:03 PM Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Dylan Baker <[email protected]> >> > >> > wrote: >> >> > On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 02:25:15 PM Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Dylan Baker <[email protected]> >> >> > >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 07:07:19 PM Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Tom Stellard <[email protected]> >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi Dylan, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I've tested version 2 of this series, and I have a few >> >> >> >> > questions/comments: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > + I really like being able to see how many tests have run and >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > how many have completed. The pass/fail rates are nice and >> >> >> >> > help me identify bad test runs right away. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > + Would it be possible to print the test names in the non-verbose >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > output mode? Would this work in concurrency mode? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > + When I use the verbose output, the output looks like this: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > running :: Program/Execute/get-global-id, skip: 11, warn: 1 >> >> >> >> > Running >> >> >> >> > Test(s): 253 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bah, the test name is too short... the OpenCL tests need to get >> >> >> >> with >> >> >> >> the program -- at least 50 chars per test name, like the OpenGL >> >> >> >> tests >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yeah, that's why the short mode has the running test numbers. I >> >> >> > guess >> >> >> > we >> >> >> > could do something like have piglit catch SIGQUIT and print the >> >> >> > running >> >> >> > test names before exiting. Of course, that's the kind of evil thing >> >> >> > yum >> >> >> > does and drives me crazy >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, apparently that's the preferred way of killing piglit right now. >> >> >> I'm also not a big fan of doing unexpected things with signals. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> :) The old contents of the line aren't being fully overwritten... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I wonder if instead of relying on \r + overwriting, we should >> >> >> >> instead >> >> >> >> emit a ^L (clear screen) -- although obviously not for the verbose >> >> >> >> output. I also wonder if this style of output should only happen if >> >> >> >> the output is a tty. This would also allow one to show all the >> >> >> >> currently-running tests, one per line or something (to satisfy the >> >> >> >> previous request). And it would resolve the issue when the line >> >> >> >> becomes longer than the terminal width and you get wrapping. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > we could also just emit blank space to pad up to 80 characters(since >> >> >> > that's >> >> >> > the standard width for a terminal), or we could do some magic to >> >> >> > find >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > width of the terminal, and do some more magic to fill space pad >> >> >> > that. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If we really want to get fancy we could use curses to have >> >> >> > multi-line >> >> >> > rewrites. I looked into it initially and there are python bindings >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > work on all of the major versions of curses, but ewww... curses >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, we wouldn't have to go full-on curses, just a couple of commands >> >> >> that would be easy enough to just emit directly. Actually I guess ^L >> >> >> doesn't "just work" -- the shell must handle it somehow :( The >> >> >> internet says that print "\033[2J" "\033[0;0H" should work (clear >> >> >> screen, reset coordinates). But we can obviously only play such tricks >> >> >> at all in the first place if stdout is a tty, i.e. >> >> >> sys.stdout.isatty(). >> >> > >> >> > I'm concerned about portability. We do have windows users, and then >> >> > there's >> >> > the bash, dash, tcsh, zsh, ksh, tmux, screen, etc. \r is pretty >> >> > standard. >> >> >> >> That sequence should work in any terminal written in the past 30 >> >> years, AFAIK. However windows is an interesting question -- I would >> >> guess that isatty() returns false there. And then you would fall back >> >> on the terser output without test names which can still fit on one >> >> line. If isatty() is true there, we could just have an explicit check. >> >> A question is whether isatty() == false should imply verbose mode or >> >> not. (e.g. what should happen if you do ./piglit-run.py > foo.log, or >> >> even | tee foo.log) >> > >> > The other thing about the terminal codes is that they don't solve the >> > problem, since clearing the screen in verbose mode would defeat the >> > purpose of having a verbose mode (lots of terminal spew), and in terse >> > mode the line will only ever get longer. >> >> This would obviously not be done for verbose mode, only non-verbose. >> Otherwise, as you mention, it would completely defeat the point of >> verbose. >> >> But for the non-verbose mode, you could have the output like >> >> [1234/5000] pass: 1000, fail: 123, etc. Running tests: >> [1233] some/long/test-name with/many-parameters that/make-no-sense >> [1222] another/similarly-randomly-named/test >> >> And to refresh it, you'd clear the screen, and "redraw". >> >> > The other option is to have a -o/--out option that logs the output to a >> > file, and a -s/--silent option that silences sys.stdout (which could be >> > used in conjunction to get only file logging) >> >> I dunno if _more_ options are the answer :) I'd rather find the >> smallest number of options that maximizes people's satisfaction with >> the system. I was hoping that -v/not-v would be enough. If enough >> people would do -v by default, perhaps we should flip it and make it >> -q for quiet mode. (I've never seen -s for silent, -q is pretty >> standard, e.g. wget uses it, and a ton of other tools.) And using >> isatty() to seed it wouldn't be so bad -- tty's get quiet, non-tty's >> get verbose. Perhaps that's too confusing though. > > That is an option, I'll code something up. > > I acutally do have a use for a quite mode, I'm setting up a few headless > jenkins servers, and printing anything is utterly useless for that > application. >
Oh, I see what you meant by "silent". I misunderstood. You meant "no output at all". So then we have "regular", "verbose", and "quiet". Makes sense. tty's get regular by default, non-tty's get verbose. (Where "regular" is the thing described above.) -ilia _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
