Closed Bug 1200293 Opened 4 years ago Closed 4 years ago
mach target for mozregression
A few days ago we discussed adding a "mach" frontend to mozregression. 16:18 ahal parkouss: wlach: would it make sense to have a mach frontend to mozregression? 16:19 ahal (for discoverability mainly) 16:19 wlach ahal: I'm unsure. the nice thing about mozregression is that it's useable by non-developers, so we'd want to keep that at least 16:19 wlach ahal: I suppose it would be a time saver to have it already set up in the mach environment 16:19 ahal mach commands can pip install things 16:20 ahal so you could still keep mozregression as is 16:20 ahal but also have a very barebones mach wrapper around it 16:20 wlach ahal: yep 16:20 wlach ahal: I think this would be more a question for platform developers than me 16:20 Ms2ger Sounds like a good iea 16:20 Ms2ger idea 16:20 ahal yeah, I was wondering how many people know about mozregression 16:20 wlach they do seem to have trouble installing mozregression and keeping it up to date While I think we should continue maintaining the standalone version, but I think for Mozilla developers an-always-up-to-date copy of mozregression in-tree would be a godsend for usability and accesibility. I don't have time to work on this myself right now, but CC'ing two people who might be interested in implementation (parkouss and mikeling) and one person who knows more about what would be involved in writing such a thing (ahal).
Mach commands have access to a virtualenv manager that can install packages from pypi, see here for an example: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/python/mozbuild/mozbuild/frontend/mach_commands.py?offset=0#37
Well, this is a bit complicated for the options parsing, because we should add a parser attribute to the @Command decorator - but we can not get the parser from mozregression before installing it in the virtualenv. :( Is there a way to add lazily argument parsing using mach ? I mean something like "./mach mozregression" would first install it in virtualenv, and after that we could have the parser. I'm against parsing code duplication, in case someone ask. :) Another possibility I can think of is trying to import mozregression. If it does not exists, print a command to install it (or just install it). If the import works, then we have the parser and we can just use it to generate the command line. Not sure how this will work with the virtualenv provided by mach, because looking at the code in comment 1 this is done inside a mach call (so we have the same problem as described above).
Yeah, that's tricky. The parser argument to the @Command decorator accepts a function that returns an ArgumentParser object, so yes it is possible to lazy load parsers. But you won't have access to self.virtualenv_manager in that context :/. I guess you could instantiate a new virtualenv_manager in that function and do the pip install there.
I looked more into that. It seems that the parser function that can be given in @Command is called before the MachCommandBase constructor, but this constructor give us some interesting paths (src and obj dir) that are useful to activate the env (or instantiate a new virtualenv_manager). We had a discussion on irc with :ahal, and we should investigate if resolving bug 985141 can help us here.
See Also: → 985141
Bug 985141 would solve the problem, but it is a lot of work. It should be possible to pass additional context to the parser function. You can make this backwards compatible by using inspect.getargspec to see how many arguments a function accepts. If it accepts arguments, you know it supports the new-style support for passing contexts. Now, argument parsing does happen before command dispatch. So things might be a bit wonky. e.g. the virtualenv magic is attached to MozbuildObject, which is inherited by MachCommandBase, which is the base class for all mach commands interfacing with the build system. Fortunately, it is trivial to instantiate a VirtualenvManager . Unfortunately, that's a layering violation to put in a mach.* module because VirtualenvManager is part of the mozbuild package. So, what you need is for the parser function context to receive sufficient arguments to import and instantiate a VirtualenvManager. That means topsrcdir and topobjdir. And topobjdir likely means importing mozbuild.base and calling MozbuildObject.from_environment(). At which point you can just call obj.virtualenv_manager to get a handle on a VirtualenvManager. I hope this makes sense.  https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/dd509db16a13/python/mozbuild/mozbuild/base.py#l223
This totally make sense, thanks :gps!
This is the mozregression side of the change - this basically add a mach_interface module to provide the required mach integration API.
Assignee: nobody → j.parkouss
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #8655716 - Flags: review?(wlachance)
This is the mach side patch. This should only be landed once mozregression has been released with the above change, and we would require that to fully test anyway. Still if you do "pip install -e /patch/to/mozregression" using the branch that contains the above patch in the objdir virtualenv you can make "mach mozregression" works.
Comment on attachment 8655716 [details] [review] prepare mozregession for mach integration Looks good! Thanks.
Attachment #8655716 - Flags: review?(wlachance) → review+
Thanks Will! Landed as https://github.com/mozilla/mozregression/commit/ae6122c03132c01a550d68373aeeb0c9376682cb.
Comment on attachment 8655727 [details] [diff] [review] 1200293.patch Review of attachment 8655727 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is pretty much an r+, but there are a few changes and I wouldn't mind seeing the final patch once more. ::: tools/mach_commands.py @@ +389,5 @@ > +def mozregression_create_parser(): > + # Create the mozregression command line parser. > + # if mozregression is not installed, or not up to date, it will > + # first be installed. > + cmd = MozbuildObject.from_environment() A bit of a shame that it requires a build_obj, but good enough for now. @@ +412,5 @@ > + # mozregression is up to date, return the parser. > + return mozregression.parser() > + # exit if we updated or installed mozregression because > + # we may have already imported mozregression and running it > + # as this may cause issues. You can reload the module without leaving the interpreter, see https://docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#reload @@ +418,5 @@ > + > + > +@CommandProvider > +class MozregressionCommand(MachCommandBase): > + @Command('mozregression', I think the main new consumers of this command will be the ones who don't know what mozregression is. I'd call it something like 'bisect-regression' or 'find-regression'.. that way people will know right away what it's for. You could still mention mozregression in the description if you wanted. @@ +419,5 @@ > + > +@CommandProvider > +class MozregressionCommand(MachCommandBase): > + @Command('mozregression', > + category='ci', I saw gps' comment on irc yesterday.. but this doesn't really have anything to do with ci or testing. I agree with your initial idea, I think it should go in Potpourri. It's kind of a miscellaneous tool.
(In reply to Andrew Halberstadt [:ahal] from comment #11) > Comment on attachment 8655727 [details] [diff] [review] > 1200293.patch > @@ +418,5 @@ > > + > > + > > +@CommandProvider > > +class MozregressionCommand(MachCommandBase): > > + @Command('mozregression', > > I think the main new consumers of this command will be the ones who don't > know what mozregression is. I'd call it something like 'bisect-regression' > or 'find-regression'.. that way people will know right away what it's for. > You could still mention mozregression in the description if you wanted. I don't think that's necessarily true: there's a lot of developers who know what mozregression is and have used it, but would benefit from having it in mach because it means they no longer need to worry about pip installing it (which requires all sorts of python knowledge, especially when things go wrong). I'd personally prefer to keep the naming as it is, mozregression has a pretty strong brand that I'd like to take advantage of. `find-regression` or `bisect-regression` could mean almost anything.
A few points: I know about reload, but this is dangerous, in the docs you can see some caveats: When a module is reloaded, its dictionary (containing the module’s global variables) is retained. Redefinitions of names will override the old definitions, so this is generally not a problem. If the new version of a module does not define a name that was defined by the old version, the old definition remains. This feature can be used to the module’s advantage if it maintains a global table or cache of objects Now if I reload one module 1 that previously have loaded a module 2, this module 2 won't be reloaded - so we are calling old code, and that can break. I don't want to maintain a list of what should be reloaded, I think it is a good option to just ask to retype command. Else we could use something like https://pypi.python.org/pypi/reloader/ or implement our reload mechanism, don't know if that worst the cost. Hm, for the name I agree with :wlach, I like mozregression since it is mozregression that is called. It would be easier for users to look over internet for help about mozregression for example. And I'm a bit concerned that bisect-regression or find-regression, because it looks like git bisect or hg bisect and this is not the same thing since we are operating on prebuilt binaries, not source files. For the category, Pot pourri is fine for me!
So I just released mozregression 1.0.0 which have the required code to make that patch works. :) I only fixed the category to potpourri here, not sure if something else was required. :ahal, please tell me if something is not good!
Comment on attachment 8657453 [details] [diff] [review] 1200293.patch Review of attachment 8657453 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alright, wfm!
Attachment #8657453 - Flags: review?(ahalberstadt) → review+
fixed one typo that prevented mozregression updates (tried just now). So carrying r+ from previous review.
Checkin needed for Attachment #8658304 [details] [diff] - this does not require a try as this is mach interface only. Thanks!
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.