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

Introduce "exec-runnables-recipe" resolver #6032

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

clebergnu
Copy link
Contributor

This resolver is somewhat of a hybrid between the "exec-test" and the "runnables-recipe" resolvers.

It runs an executable, and attempts to read from its STDOUT content that will be treated as runnables-recipe JSON content. If that succeeds, the content will be returned as test resolutions. This is useful for executable tests or test generators that will output the tests dynamically.

Fixes: #6009

The exec-test and tap resolvers share the same code that verifies the
condition of the reference given being an executable file.

This would be enough to consolidate them into a single method, but
there's going to be a third users of the same check, so there's more
reason for that yet.

Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <[email protected]>
@clebergnu clebergnu added the customer:Passt Requirements/issues raised by the Passt project label Sep 18, 2024
@clebergnu clebergnu added this to the 108 - Codename TBD milestone Sep 18, 2024
@clebergnu clebergnu self-assigned this Sep 18, 2024
This resolver is somewhat of a hybrid between the "exec-test" and the
"runnables-recipe" resolvers.

It runs an executable, and attempts to read from its STDOUT content
that will be treated as runnables-recipe JSON content.  If that
succeeds, the content will be returned as test resolutions.  This is
useful for executable tests or test generators that will output the
tests dinamically.

Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <[email protected]>
This adds support for used defined arguments to be passed while
running the executables that will generate the runnables recipe JSON
content.

It gives the opportunity for either calling the executables with a
particular option that will output the runnables (instead of other
action), or tweaking the type of runnables that will be generated.

Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@richtja richtja left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @clebergnu, I don't have many comments to the code itself, but I think we should discuss the overall behaviour of exec-runnables-recipe resolver.

IIUIC, with your solution we can combine exec-runnables-recipe and exec-test resolvers together, which IMO is not good behaviour, because we could end up in situations where tests are run during resolving phase. I would propose two possible solutions here.

  1. If --resolver-run-executables option is used all the other resolvers are disabled. This is easy solution, but we will lose the possibility of running multiple test types at once.
  2. --resolver-run-executables won't be a boolean, but it will be list where user can specify executables which should be directly run by exec-runnables-recipe resolver. All the other references will go through normal resolution process. I would prefer this kind of solution.

What do you think, about this problem.


content, _ = process.communicate()
try:
runnables = json.loads(content)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This whole part from 258 to 280 is duplication of RunnablesRecipeResolver code. IMO, it would be better to call the RunnablesRecipeResolver or create some Base class for holding the json validation a resolving code.

"to the executable when executing it as a producer of "
"runnables-recipe JSON content."
)
settings.register_option(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am not sure if this is the best solution, what would happen when there would be more than one run-executables-resolver, all of them should get the same arguments?

What about have the arguments as part of the reference behind :. Like this:

$ avocado list --resolver-run-executables examples/nrunner/resolvers/exec_runnables_recipe_kind.sh:tap

@clebergnu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @clebergnu, I don't have many comments to the code itself, but I think we should discuss the overall behaviour of exec-runnables-recipe resolver.

IIUIC, with your solution we can combine exec-runnables-recipe and exec-test resolvers together, which IMO is not good behaviour, because we could end up in situations where tests are run during resolving phase. I would propose two possible solutions here.

True. Although I believe the solution we have for that is really the use of different suites. Users should be aware of the behavior, and control, through the use of different suites, if executables are meant to be run during the resolver phase or not.

  1. If --resolver-run-executables option is used all the other resolvers are disabled. This is easy solution, but we will lose the possibility of running multiple test types at once.

Right.

  1. --resolver-run-executables won't be a boolean, but it will be list where user can specify executables which should be directly run by exec-runnables-recipe resolver. All the other references will go through normal resolution process. I would prefer this kind of solution.

I think this is flexible, but adds "special" options and behavior to the overall resolver approach.

What do you think, about this problem.

Like I said before, I think users should pick the references themselves that should be executed for resolutions, and the ones that should not (that will be executed as tests instead).

I'll go ahead and better document the behavior and put a note about how users can not (or should not) combine those two different types of executables in a single suite.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
customer:Passt Requirements/issues raised by the Passt project
Projects
Status: Review Requested
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Easier introspection of available tests (reading of test manifest)
2 participants