Roundup Robot devn...@psf.upfronthosting.co.za 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
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr 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
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
As an aside, the quicktest would probably deserve an update.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11651
___
Nadeem Vawda nadeem.va...@gmail.com 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
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr 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 rep...@bugs.python.org
Nadeem Vawda nadeem.va...@gmail.com added the comment:
What changes do you suggest?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11651
___
___
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr 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 rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11651
Nadeem Vawda nadeem.va...@gmail.com 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
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
The latest patch looks ok to me.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11651
___
___
Roundup Robot devn...@psf.upfronthosting.co.za 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
--
___
Changes by Nadeem Vawda nadeem.va...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: patch review - committed/rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11651
___
Nadeem Vawda nadeem.va...@gmail.com 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
Roundup Robot devn...@psf.upfronthosting.co.za 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
___
Changes by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +Arfrever
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue11651
___
New submission from Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr:
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
Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org added the comment:
I propose instead to change 'make quicktest' to use -j(N1) 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
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
I propose instead to change 'make quicktest' to use -j(N1) 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
Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org 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
Nadeem Vawda nadeem.va...@gmail.com 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
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr 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
Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org 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?
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr 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
Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org 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
Ross Lagerwall rosslagerw...@gmail.com 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
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr 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.
Brett Cannon br...@python.org 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
Nadeem Vawda nadeem.va...@gmail.com 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
27 matches
Mail list logo
