Re: QA Tests: Python vs C++

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____
>