Re: QA Tests: Python vs C++

[Marcus Müller]

Hi Jeff,

since all the data handling is done in C++ land in GNU Radio anyways, the only difference 
in test performance is when the Python code takes longer to evaluate the the result of 
some flow graph.

For example:
if you write a test case where the data from a vector sink is compared to the data from 
some reference numpy vector, and you do that with a test function that recognizes both 
reference and test data are iterables, and then, in Python code, compares 
element-by-element, then that's slow.

If you just did

self.assertTrue(numpy.array_equiv(reference, self.sink.data()))

that should be as fast as doing it C++.

Best regards,
Marcus

On 07.03.22 16:40, Josh Morman wrote:
> 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 <e070832@hotmail.com <mailto:e070832@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____