From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFEB43E44; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8724029C; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ed1-f41.google.com (mail-ed1-f41.google.com [209.85.208.41]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0882340268 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ed1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56e2b3e114fso8272100a12.2 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 05:13:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pantheon.tech; s=google; t=1712837625; x=1713442425; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Hy94m6fXQw2unZTLRZUZcAvuWQ78Ai8Xan4eXedUnXk=; b=LUimgGuG8Ry8Y8Faai6bc2VRk9XbuhEiObaQB3fG12DfUc0QG6sNmkF0fwyILZfk0Z kFoswvHBvuGPjKD87JcocFG2MhFDSVRIbTlWEI7VDnnOye8eZe+RnyFOA6WxWgykED2e gcc+EgeZ5G8w6rzcteAnBb1bXoZfPXyPX7qMqLrPWrelxB+SMbuyYwvjRAjpKk6JRnhn GcgpOeI21t4gBFwHHj0ijmVkEeeX2r171DXxF1/Zs7g7E/VuF+Hyo5ZSyEOYcggCjjry MHH5BoEGm03TvDrNm/8zogzk4EBPjSOa4k1/SL+gui6WsSZaZn0oW31r3L6F6FNMWcnL ZMiA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712837625; x=1713442425; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Hy94m6fXQw2unZTLRZUZcAvuWQ78Ai8Xan4eXedUnXk=; b=YrkKzcXNcOoIwDG0aVR2xhB/KyJJikgjQdNqdngvHdyxsFP9RSn0FYwuxDltTM1jlY oLyLoQp9qioIRtzGxxzFWP+iyyXCEpVEbPOeiCo+JxzAwBVAJpO6b3twg+qJxBY+KDMg kdJdxfQlKCpob7XuFwkIIJLrhyV6IEsXyqoG00oDzqKTNPJm/QRSF/nuU6F8IBRnbx8l nPEN6+XZgCXLyAv5lpMkGLyT4HxHHhFT5bLDM5oY6c64AfP/5mK9a3JHTm+UYgI0GLIZ igCaqJwNyxrMDH5cbRm7NKrBE9WyuMC7iijghqg2qiy0x8m9MDVgXQIjz8nFo6Addmoq ODXw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV4Tvk/AphNJoMmbcehaqAvoRiwdQXDbDs3iYQf/p0YrLsKLJXN6idihs/+nsWZzER8a/RPdAPmy5VB0AI= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyufCxTVgX3fQBGz3G1sjmP20C2fj3cerQ1nU5p73hdzaiQbh9T 9aEXCzf7coCRKskjNP324rv4fCweJnlSagbemR8vC5ceMXDdANMdp6Itjw5/u3gdOa29Q6kZCq9 7mjNWqKNvQrbLiTVWsNTZqNpf5glZuHY2HUKTnA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF2XtjHBlb9/n3mMC/a1fEaqyeJvNCEGzohbgHc81emhkTfViSA1jB9FqDcDcnagwYt0jzSCPJFXaPa9leFvR8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1b25:b0:a52:15c3:b64e with SMTP id mp37-20020a1709071b2500b00a5215c3b64emr3009547ejc.10.1712837625491; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 05:13:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240326190422.577028-1-luca.vizzarro@arm.com> <20240326190422.577028-7-luca.vizzarro@arm.com> <1db1b2b8-fac0-41ad-9ba2-911365385a9b@arm.com> <5d35012d-0ffd-4c23-ad0c-8315453b8c9e@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <5d35012d-0ffd-4c23-ad0c-8315453b8c9e@arm.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Juraj_Linke=C5=A1?= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13:34 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] dts: add statefulness to TestPmdShell To: Luca Vizzarro Cc: Jeremy Spewock , dev@dpdk.org, Jack Bond-Preston , Honnappa Nagarahalli Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:47=E2=80=AFPM Luca Vizzarro wrote: > > On 11/04/2024 11:30, Juraj Linke=C5=A1 wrote: > > I've been thinking about these interactive shell constructors for some > > time and I think the factory pattern is not well suitable for this. > > Factories work well with classes with the same API (i.e. > > implementations of abstract classes that don't add anything extra), > > but are much less useful when dealing with classes with different > > behaviors, such as the interactive shells. We see this here, different > > apps are going to require different args and that alone kinda breaks > > the factory pattern. I think we'll need to either ditch these > > factories and instead just have methods that return the proper shell > > (and the methods would only exist in classes where they belong, e.g. > > testpmd only makes sense on an SUT). Or we could overload each factory > > (the support has only been added in 3.11 with @typing.overload, but is > > also available in typing_extensions, so we would be able to use it > > with the extra dependency) where different signatures would return > > different objects. In both cases the caller won't have to import the > > class and the method signature is going to be clearer. > > > > We have this pattern with sut/tg nodes. I decided to move away from > > the node factory because it didn't add much and in fact the code was > > only clunkier. The interactive shell is not quite the same, as the > > shells are not standalone in the same way the nodes are (the shells > > are tied to nodes). Let me know what you think about all this - both > > Luca and Jeremy. > > When writing this series, I went down the path of creating a > `create_testpmd_shell` method at some point as a solution to these > problems. Realising after that it may be too big of a change, and > possibly best left to a discussion exactly like this one. > The changes we discuss below don't seem that big. What do you think, do we just add another patch to the series? > Generics used at this level may be a bit too much, especially for > Python, as support is not *that* great. I am of the opinion that having > a dedicated wrapper is easier for the developer and the user. Generics > are not needed to this level anyways, as we have a limited selection of > shells that are actually going to be used. > > We can also swap the wrapping process to simplify things, instead of: > > shell =3D self.sut_node.create_interactive_shell(TestPmdShell, ..) > > do: > > shell =3D TestPmdShell(self.sut_node, ..) > > Let the Shell class ingest the node, and not the other way round. > I thought about this a bit as well, it's a good approach. The current design is top-down, as you say, in that "I have a node and I do things with the node, including starting testpmd on the node". But it could also be "I have a node, but I also have other non-node resources at my disposal and it's up to me how I utilize those". If we can make the imports work then this is likely the best option. > The current approach appears to me to be top-down instead of bottom-up. > We take the most abstracted part and we work our way down. But all we > want is concreteness to the end user (developer). > > > Let me illustrate this on the TestPmdShell __init__() method I had in m= ind: > > > > def __init__(self, interactive_session: SSHClient, > > logger: DTSLogger, > > get_privileged_command: Callable[[str], str] | None, > > app_args: EalTestPmdParams | None =3D None, > > timeout: float =3D SETTINGS.timeout, > > ) -> None: > > super().__init__(interactive_session, logger, get_privileged_comma= nd) > > self.state =3D TestPmdState() > > > > Where EalTestPmdParams would be something that enforces that > > app_args.app_params is of the TestPmdParameters type. > > > > But thinking more about this, we're probably better off switching the > > params composition. Instead of TestPmdParameters being part of > > EalParameters, we do it the other way around. This way the type of > > app_args could just be TestPmdParameters and the types should work. > > Or we pass the args separately, but that would likely require ditching > > the factories and replacing them with methods (or overloading them). > > > > And hopefully the imports won't be impossible to solve. :-) > > It is what I feared, and I think it may become even more convoluted. As > you said, ditching the factories will simplify things and make it more > straightforward. So, we wouldn't find ourselves in problems like these. > > I don't have a strong preference in approach between: > * overloading node methods > * dedicated node methods > * let the shells ingest nodes instead > > But if I were to give priority, I'd take it from last to first. Letting > shells ingest nodes will decouple the situation adding an extra step of > simplification. +1 for simplification. > I may not see the full picture though. The two are > reasonable but, having a dedicated node method will stop the requirement > to import the shell we need, and it's pretty much equivalent... but > overloading also is very new to Python, so I may prefer to stick to more > established. > Let's try shells ingesting nodes if the imports work out then. If not, we can fall back to dedicated node methods. > Letting TestPmdParams take EalParams, instead of the other way around, > would naturally follow the bottom-up approach too. Allowing Params to > arbitrarily append string arguments =E2=80=93 as proposed, would also all= ow > users to use a plain (EalParams + string). So sounds like a good > approach overall.