Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1] Add option to update file with reference output

[Sergey Bronnikov <sergeyb@tarantool.org>]

Hello, Alexander

thanks for review. See my comments inline.
Patch is updated in a branch.

On 01:21 Sat 16 May , Alexander Turenko wrote:
> There is https://github.com/tarantool/test-run/issues/194
> 
> My initial thought was that we'll fix both problems at once. I think it
> would be good to have both actions under one option: update existing
> result files and write new result files, because this way it is simpler
> to use.

Agree, patch modified to cover case when .result file is absent at all.

> However I don't insist: if you want to implement only updating existing
> result files, I don't mind.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:01:24AM +0300, Sergey Bronnikov wrote:
> > In case of test failure test-run.py create a file .reject with actual
> > test output and one need to move .reject file to .result manually when
> > test has a valid behaviout. With option --update-ref-output test-run.py
> > will do it automagically.
> > 
> > Fixes: #4654
> 
> Nit: It does not reference tarantool's issue in GitHub web interface. I
> use a full link when I need to link an issue from another repository.

Updated commit message.
> > 
> > GitHub branch: https://github.com/tarantool/test-run/tree/ligurio/gh-4654-update-ref-output
> > 
> > ---
> >  lib/options.py |  8 ++++++++
> >  lib/test.py    | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> >  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/options.py b/lib/options.py
> > index 8bacb4a..174a62f 100644
> > --- a/lib/options.py
> > +++ b/lib/options.py
> > @@ -201,6 +201,14 @@ class Options:
> >                  help="""Run the server under 'luacov'.
> >                  Default: false.""")
> >  
> > +        parser.add_argument(
> > +                "--update-ref-output",
> 
> Maybe --update-result it would be more intuitive for developers, but I
> don't insist.

Replaced "--updtae-ref-output" to "--update-result".

> 
> > +                dest="update_reference_output",
> > +                action="store_true",
> > +                default=False,
> > +                help="""Update file with reference output (.reject) in case of fail
> 
> Typo: .reject -> .result.

Fixed.

> > +                and set status pass. Default: false.""")
> > +
> 
> We have status 'new' (which in fact means that a test is passed, but
> shown as [ new ] in the output). I would introduce [ updated ] bagde for
> this sake.

Added new status.

> NB: If you'll introduce 'updated' status, let's also count it in
> statistics as 'updated' (AFAIR, it should work properly just based on
> test.run() return value, but, please, check).

Tested and looks like new status accounted in statistics.

> >          # XXX: We can use parser.parse_intermixed_args() on
> >          # Python 3.7 to understand commands like
> >          # ./test-run.py foo --exclude bar baz
> > diff --git a/lib/test.py b/lib/test.py
> > index 3e93af3..396bb89 100644
> > --- a/lib/test.py
> > +++ b/lib/test.py
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ except ImportError:
> >      from StringIO import StringIO
> >  
> >  import lib
> > +from lib.options import Options
> >  from lib.colorer import color_stdout
> >  from lib.utils import non_empty_valgrind_logs
> >  from lib.utils import print_tail_n
> > @@ -242,23 +243,33 @@ class Test(object):
> >              color_stdout("[ new ]\n", schema='test_new')
> >          else:
> >              has_result = os.path.exists(self.tmp_result)
> > +            update_reference = lib.Options().args.update_reference_output
> 
> has_result, update_reference -- two terms are used to reference one
> thing. I guess you dislike 'result' term, but it should be either kept
> or changed consistently.

Both variables has gone after rewriting condition.

> >              if has_result:
> > -                shutil.copy(self.tmp_result, self.reject)
> > -            short_status = 'fail'
> > +                if update_reference:
> > +                    reject_dest = self.result
> > +                else:
> > +                    reject_dest = self.reject
> > +                shutil.copy(self.tmp_result, reject_dest)
> > +            if update_reference:
> > +                short_status = 'pass'
> > +            else:
> > +                short_status = 'fail'
> 
> We have one if-branch, which sets 'skip' status, another for 'pass', one
> for 'new' and this one, which previously set 'fail'. I propose to keep
> this code block organized in such way and add one more branch, which
> will set 'updated' status.
> 
> It also looks more clear, because here we have two `if update_reference`
> for 9 lines of code: it is better to hoist this branching up to parent's
> if-elif-else chain.

Done.

> Like so (not tested):
> 
>  |              shutil.copy(self.tmp_result, self.result)
>  |              short_status = 'new'
>  |              color_stdout("[ new ]\n", schema='test_new')
>  | +        elif (self.is_executed_ok and
>  | +              not self.is_equal_result and
>  | +              os.path.isfile(self.result) and
>  | +              lib.Options().args.update_result):
>  | +            shutil.copy(self.tmp_result, self.result)
>  | +            short_status = 'updated'
>  | +            color_stdout("[ updated ]\n", schema='test_new')
>  |          else:
>  |              has_result = os.path.exists(self.tmp_result)
>  |              if has_result:
> 
> (You may add 'test_updated' to a schema in colorer.py if you want.)

I'm no a fan of coloring output in a terminal. Using existed color
schemes is ok for me.

> >              color_stdout("[ fail ]\n", schema='test_fail')
> 
> It will show '[ fail ]' even when a result fill will be updated?

Line has gone after rewriting code.

> >  
> >              where = ""
> >              if not self.is_crash_reported and not has_result:
> >                  color_stdout('\nCannot open %s\n' % self.tmp_result,
> >                               schema='error')
> > -            elif not self.is_crash_reported and not self.is_executed_ok:
> > +            elif not self.is_crash_reported and not self.is_executed_ok and \
> > +                not update_reference:
> 
> When exit code is non-zero we should report a test failure anyway.

Well, removed "not update_reference" from condition.

> >                  self.print_diagnostics(self.reject,
> >                                         "Test failed! Output from reject file "
> >                                         "{0}:\n".format(self.reject))
> >                  server.print_log(15)
> >                  where = ": test execution aborted, reason " \
> >                          "'{0}'".format(diagnostics)
> > -            elif not self.is_crash_reported and not self.is_equal_result:
> > +            elif not self.is_crash_reported and not self.is_equal_result and \
> > +                not update_reference:
> 
> To be honest I dislike mangling of the code block that process a test
> failure with those 'if update_reference' conditions. Let's process test
> fail situation and update result situation separately (as proposed
> above).

We don't need to process option "update_result" here, so separate branch is useless.

-- 
sergeyb@