On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 11:13:14PM +0800, Shu Ming wrote:
> On 2012-6-7 21:26, Adam Litke wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:03:30PM +0800, Zhou Zheng Sheng wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Since there is no coverage report on tests in vdsm, if a PEP 8 patch
> >>passes the tests, we still not sure if there is no mistake in it.
> >>Viewing the diff reports on all the changes consumes a lot of time, and
> >>some small but fatal mistakes(like misspelling variable name) can easily
> >>be ignored by human eyes.
> >>
> >>So I have a try on the compiler module of Python. I write a tool named
> >>'pydiff'. pydiff parses two Python scripts into Abstract Syntax Trees.
> >>These data structures can reflect the logic of the code, and pydiff
> >>performs a recursive compare on the trees. Then pydiff reports
> >>differences and the corresponding line numbers. In this way, pydiff
> >>ignores code style changes, and reports only logical changes of the code.
> >>
> >>I think this tool can save us a lot of time. After a PEP 8 patch passes
> >>vdsm tests and pydiff, I will get some confidence on the patch and it
> >>probably does not break anything in vdsm.
> >This is a very nice tool.  Thanks for sharing it.  I would like to see all
> >authors of PEP8 patches use this to check their patches for semantic
> >correctness.  This should greatly improve our ability to complete the PEP8
> >cleanup quickly.
> Yes, I agree with you.  Also, we should merge this tool into vdsm as
> a helper for PEP8 clean work.

Thanks, Zhou Zheng! I hope this expedites the pep8 conversion process.

As the tool is not vdsm-specific, I'd rather see it in pypi.python.org
than in vdsm.

vdsm-devel mailing list

Reply via email to