On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 5:49 AM Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <
vsement...@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> 25.06.2021 21:20, John Snow wrote:
> > This turns run_linters() into a bit of a hybrid test; returning non-zero
> > on failed execution while also printing diffable information. This is
> > done for the benefit of the avocado simple test runner, which will soon
> > be attempting to execute this test from a different environment.
> >
> > (Note: universal_newlines is added to the pylint invocation for type
> > consistency with the mypy run -- it's not strictly necessary, but it
> > avoids some typing errors caused by our re-use of the 'p' variable.)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > tests/qemu-iotests/297 | 10 ++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/297 b/tests/qemu-iotests/297
> > index 1e8334d1d4..7db1f9ed45 100755
> > --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/297
> > +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/297
> > @@ -68,19 +68,22 @@ def run_linters(
> > files: List[str],
> > directory: str = '.',
> > env: Optional[Mapping[str, str]] = None,
> > -) -> None:
> > +) -> int:
> > + ret = 0
> >
> > print('=== pylint ===')
> > sys.stdout.flush()
> >
> > # Todo notes are fine, but fixme's or xxx's should probably just be
> > # fixed (in tests, at least)
> > - subprocess.run(
> > + p = subprocess.run(
> > ('python3', '-m', 'pylint', '--score=n', '--notes=FIXME,XXX',
> *files),
> > cwd=directory,
> > env=env,
> > check=False,
> > + universal_newlines=True,
> > )
> > + ret += p.returncode
> >
> > print('=== mypy ===')
> > sys.stdout.flush()
> > @@ -113,9 +116,12 @@ def run_linters(
> > universal_newlines=True
> > )
> >
> > + ret += p.returncode
> > if p.returncode != 0:
> > print(p.stdout)
> >
> > + return ret
> > +
> >
> > def main() -> None:
> > for linter in ('pylint-3', 'mypy'):
> >
>
> Hmm..
>
> 1. Rather unusual for a function in python to return int error-code, more
> usual is raising exceptions..
>
>
It is strange, but I felt that if these tests were going to run in "two
contexts" that I would avoid raising Exceptions and trying to understand
how it would affect either call stack.
> 2. making a sum of return codes looks odd to me
>
>
Just a cheap way to state that a 0 return is good, and a non-zero return
code is failure.
> 3. Do we really want to run mypy if pylint failed? Maybe better not doing
> it, and just switch s/check=False/check=True/ ? This way:
>
>
I suppose we could. For the sake of CI, I like seeing more output instead
of less so that you can save yourself the trouble and fix everything before
re-submitting the CI job. What do you think?
> 3.1 the function becomes native wrapper for subprocess.run, and raise same
> exceptions
> 3.2 we don't waste CI time by running mypy when pylint failed anyway
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Vladimir
>
>
