Re: [PATCH/RFC] test: run static checkers with Avocado and JSON definitions

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2909 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:00:32PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> Not a review, just two remarks:
> 
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 21:35:28 +1000
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > > [...]
> > 
> > So, you can run the tests either with run_avocado, or running Avocado
> > directly?
> > 
> > > The installation of Avocado itself is left to users, given that the
> > > details on how to install it (virtual environments and specific
> > > tooling) can be a very different and long discussion.  
> > 
> > Right... if the required Avocado version was already packaged in
> > latest Fedora and/or Debian, I'd have no qualms about that.  It looks
> > like you require a very new one though, which makes me a little
> > nervous about requiring that complex installation.  I guess if it's
> > pip installable that helps.  Though if I recall on Debian even that
> > requires some venv setup.  Eventually I think we'll want a README for
> > Avocado installation, or better yet make targets that will install it
> > automatically in a local venv.
> 
> I plan to try this out on Debian and report back -- I didn't have time
> yet. Indeed, it would help to have all the dependencies packaged because
> it would be really beneficial if we could run the upstream tests also as
> automated package testing, e.g. for Debian it's autopkgtest:
>   https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/autopkgtest
> 
> The current test suite has all the dependencies packaged on (at least)
> Debian and Fedora, minus neper (https://github.com/google/neper), but
> tests will be skipped if those tools are not available.
> 
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > +++ b/test/avocado/static_checkers.json
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> > > +[
> > > +    {
> > > +        "kind": "exec-test",
> > > +        "uri": "make",
> > > +        "args": [
> > > +            "clang-tidy"
> > > +        ]
> > > +    },
> > > +    {
> > > +        "kind": "exec-test",
> > > +        "uri": "make",
> > > +        "args": [
> > > +            "cppcheck"
> > > +        ]
> > > +    }
> > > +]  
> > 
> > Looks pretty reasonable to me, at least for these simple cases.  It
> > would be nice to have comments, but IIUC that's one of the things
> > notably missing from json :/,
> 
> You could use HJSON (https://hjson.github.io/), or a subset of it, for
> example with just comments. We're using it like that in seitan, because
> that's what Parson supports, example:
>   https://seitan.rocks/seitan/tree/demo/routes.hjson

Yeah, there are bunch of json variants and extensions that allow for
comments.  Which is kind of the problem: there are a bunch of them,
making the choice non-obvious.

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]