make -J behavior default in test.py - #40945
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This changes precedence of the -j and -J flags, e.g. if test.py -j 3 -J was run and JOBS=2 then the old code would have overwritten the j value from JOBS but the new code would leave j unchanged.
It's probably a rare edge case that both flags would be specified.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we keep it so -J effectively negates -j, we'll have to update the help text to indicate that -J doesn't quite have no effect at all.
If we want to preserve that behavior, then perhaps the thing to do is print a warning when someone is using both -J and -j? Or maybe print a warning every time -J is used?
I suspect, like you, that this is a rare edge case. I also suspect that it basically does not matter. Like, if we run with 2 processes instead of 4 (or the other way around) in a rare edge case....oh well?
@richardlau Would you be comfortable if we kept the behavior as it is in this PR but add a warning that gets printed if both -j and -J are specified?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd be okay with that.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@richardlau Would you be comfortable if we kept the behavior as it is in this PR but add a warning that gets printed if both -j and -J are specified?
This is the behavior I've implemented in a fixup commit. PTAL.
Sorry, something went wrong.
richardlau
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm sans the conflict markers in BUILDING.md
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
PR-URL: #40945 Reviewed-By: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
No description provided.