Jeff, When tests are done in C++, they also must be compiled, which adds to the overall gnuradio compilation time. In-tree the c++ tests are reserved mainly for testing the really low level like buffers. I agree with you that an all c++ target makes debugging easy, but you can launch the python flowgraphs with the GDB debugger using program: "/usr/bin/python3" and args: /path/to/the/qa_xxx.py.
Josh On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:37 AM Jeff S <e070...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I started writing some QA tests which were missing for some blocks I’m > working on (in maint-3.9). I decided to compare using Python vs using C++ > when building new tests. When I started looking into the C++ tests, it > seems that there are not a lot of examples around, so I started wondering > why people may stick to Python over C++. > > > > I found Python quicker to code and easier to see what’s being tested, but > C++ would run the same test as the Python much quicker (according to the > time output from make test). Writing in C++ also gives me the ability to > run Visual Studio Code in debug easier and target sections of code under > test, which is a very nice feature. Visual Studio Code seems to have > problems with mixed languages under its visual debugging. > > > > Are there other aspects of Python for QA tests that I’m missing as to why > it’s the preferred method? I’m indifferent as to the tool used because > I’ll use whatever gets the job done, so I’m not trying to make this a > language pro/con question. > > > > Thanks, > > Jeff >
