Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

deps: revert default gtest reporter change #8948

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 23, 2016

Conversation

mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

@mscdex mscdex commented Oct 6, 2016

Checklist
  • make -j8 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test nosign (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)
  • gtest
Description of change

The default gtest reporter changed in c56ae16 from a pretty printing reporter to TAP. This caused TAP output to be displayed when running make test locally (outside of CI). This commit reverts that particular change.

/cc @bnoordhuis @jasnell

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/4405/

@mscdex mscdex added c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory. gtest labels Oct 6, 2016
@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

I made that change intentionally. Why would you want a different output format locally?

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Member

Fishrock123 commented Oct 6, 2016

Can we leave the tap output for make test-ci and use the pretty one locally? There's not really a reason to have tap output in the local tests.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

I think consistency with the CI is a pretty good reason. Libuv does the same thing; it makes visually comparing the output of local and remote runs a lot easier.

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Member

Fishrock123 commented Oct 6, 2016

If you want CI output, just run make test-ci -- we aren't the same as Libuv. Do you want to change the JS test output too? If not, this should be reverted for local tests.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

You asked for a reason and I gave you one. You are welcome to disagree but at least try to come up with a counterargument.

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Member

It's harder to read and also inconsistent.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

Readability is subjective but I agree it's inconsistent. Then again, so is the normal gtest output vis-a-vis the JS test runner and the linters. It doesn't bother me personally but I'm okay with switching to TAP wholesale if you think consistency is important.

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Member

Fishrock123 commented Oct 6, 2016

I'm not ok with that as it would mean scrolling through a few thousand lines of terminal text to find an error.

Copy link
Member

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll -1 as a counterweight to your +1 because I don't think your readability and consistency arguments are convincing. Besides, I like the new format.

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Member

Fishrock123 commented Oct 6, 2016

If you really want it, we can make make test-tap. It is far easier to do that than update all the docs references to point to some new make test-pretty for everyone new coming here.

Copy link
Member

@addaleax addaleax left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I have to agree with @Fishrock123 and @mscdex here… being greeted by a tap Wall of Text doesn’t seem very helpful to me.

So, +1 to the revert here, although I realize that this is purely subjective from me, too.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Oct 6, 2016

fwiw, I'm partial to the new formatting but will go with whatever the majority opinion is here. Perhaps rather than simply revert, this PR could add a test-tap target for those of us who prefer it.

@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor Author

mscdex commented Oct 6, 2016

@jasnell Are you saying test-tap would output TAP just for cctest but use progress indicators/"pretty print" for all other tests (like it is before this PR), or?

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Oct 6, 2016

@mscdex... For now, test-tap would use the current behavior (before this revert). Eventually I'd like to see test-tap do the full output as TAP.

@mscdex mscdex force-pushed the gtest-revert-default-reporter branch 2 times, most recently from 03824c8 to a205a9e Compare October 6, 2016 21:24
@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor Author

mscdex commented Oct 6, 2016

Ok, I've added test-tap that uses a new flag to configure the default printed result format.

CI again: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/4410/

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Oct 7, 2016

It'd be really useful to have both TAP and pretty formats available for running tests, I frequently find myself using both.

Is it possible to have the gtest pretty format match the tools/test.py pretty format? Ideally you'd just have the one line for everything (assuming no failures).

@@ -169,6 +169,9 @@ static const char kUniversalFilter[] = "*";
// The default output file for XML output.
static const char kDefaultOutputFile[] = "test_detail.xml";

// The default result reporter format.
static const char kDefaultResultFormat[] = "pretty";
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unused.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated.

@@ -438,6 +446,17 @@ std::string UnitTestOptions::GetAbsolutePathToOutputFile() {
return result.string();
}

// Functions for processing the gtest_result_format flag.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't this supposed to be singular, Function?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I kept it that way for consistency in case more are added in the future. I see it as more of a list heading than a comment for the one function.

Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM with the nits raised by @thefourtheye addressed.

@mscdex mscdex force-pushed the gtest-revert-default-reporter branch from a205a9e to f9ad5da Compare October 7, 2016 18:12
@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor Author

mscdex commented Oct 10, 2016

@bnoordhuis Is this acceptable to you (make test-tap)?

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

If the choice is between no TAP output locally or carrying more patches on top of gtest, I'd rather go with the former.

@mscdex mscdex force-pushed the gtest-revert-default-reporter branch from f9ad5da to cebefd4 Compare October 14, 2016 23:27
@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

@jbergstroem Did you ever make the change to make the CI pick up cctest.tap? Looking at e.g. https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-linux/5713/nodes=centos5-32/console I get the impression it doesn't currently.

@jbergstroem
Copy link
Member

@bnoordhuis no, let me fix that now. Just very tedious working with jenkins jobs when its slow :'(

@jbergstroem
Copy link
Member

@bnoordhuis just did a test run with aix61. Looks good -- do you agree? https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-aix/1508/

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

@jbergstroem Yes, looks good, thanks.

@jbergstroem
Copy link
Member

@bnoordhuis cool. Will roll out the change now.

@rvagg rvagg force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from c133999 to 83c7a88 Compare October 18, 2016 17:02
@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor Author

mscdex commented Oct 23, 2016

CI once more before landing: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/4626/

EDIT: CI is green except for a few flaky tests on freebsd and pi1.

@mscdex mscdex force-pushed the gtest-revert-default-reporter branch from d12ed28 to cd3b53e Compare October 23, 2016 08:32
PR-URL: nodejs#8948
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
@mscdex mscdex force-pushed the gtest-revert-default-reporter branch from cd3b53e to 6e5389e Compare October 23, 2016 08:34
@mscdex mscdex closed this Oct 23, 2016
@mscdex mscdex deleted the gtest-revert-default-reporter branch October 23, 2016 08:35
@mscdex mscdex merged commit 6e5389e into nodejs:master Oct 23, 2016
jasnell pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2016
PR-URL: #8948
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins added this to the 4.7.0 milestone Nov 14, 2016
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 14, 2016
PR-URL: #8948
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
mscdex added a commit to mscdex/io.js that referenced this pull request Nov 18, 2016
PR-URL: nodejs#8948
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
@mscdex mscdex mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2016
2 tasks
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2016
PR-URL: #8948
Reviewed-By: Jeremiah Senkpiel <fishrock123@rocketmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins removed this from the 4.7.0 milestone Nov 22, 2016
This was referenced Nov 22, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. tools Issues and PRs related to the tools directory.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

10 participants