Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v2 23/25] tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-01-28 21:02:53
Also in:
bpf, intel-wired-lan, linux-doc, lkml
Hi Jacob, On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 10:09:18 -0800 Jacob Keller [off-list ref] wrote:
On 1/28/2026 8:50 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:quoted
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> ---What is this patch trying to do? the title is not descriptive, and its contents don't make sense.quoted
tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py | 16 +--------------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 15 deletions(-)diff --git a/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py b/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py index e438472fa704..3cf1075b1de4 100755 --- a/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py +++ b/tools/lib/python/unittest_helper.py@@ -8,21 +8,7 @@ Helper class to better display unittest results. Those help functions provide a nice colored output summary of each -executed test and, when a test fails, it shows the different in diff -format when running in verbose mode, like:: - - $ tools/unittests/nested_match.py -v - ... - Traceback (most recent call last): - File "/new_devel/docs/tools/unittests/nested_match.py", line 69, in test_count_limit - self.assertEqual(replaced, "bar(a); bar(b); foo(c)") - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - AssertionError: 'bar(a) foo(b); foo(c)' != 'bar(a); bar(b); foo(c)' - - bar(a) foo(b); foo(c) - ? ^^^^ - + bar(a); bar(b); foo(c) - ? ^^^^^ - ... +executed test.You delete a bunch of the output here, but don't explain why. If this part of the doc is no longer valid this should be squashed into whatever patch made it invalid. I suspect this is the result of the new wrapper you added?
This patch came from a tool I wrote about one year ago for my own personal usage. It was meant to be merged with patch 21/25, as it cleans up the module description. I ended removing a function that was requiring: from difflib import unified_diff as it was unused, but, a second look at it, I guess we can just drop this patch, as this is plain unittest output. Anyway, I'll handle it either way at the next version. Thanks, Mauro