OSDir


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Python-Dev] Use of Cython



> On 6 Aug 2018, at 17:13, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml at behnel.de> wrote:
> 
> Ronald Oussoren via Python-Dev schrieb am 06.08.2018 um 15:25:
>>> On 5 Aug 2018, at 18:14, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> On 5 August 2018 at 18:06, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>>> I?m not sure if I understand this, ctypes and cffi are used to access C APIs
>>>> without writing C code including the CPython API (see for example
>>>> <https://github.com/abarnert/superhackyinternals/blob/master/internals.py>).
>>>> 
>>>> The code code below should be mostly equivalent to the Cython example posted
>>>> earlier:
>>>> 
>>>> import unittest
>>>> import ctypes
>>>> from ctypes import pythonapi
>>>> 
>>>> class PyObject(ctypes.Structure):
>>>>   _fields_ = (
>>>>       ('ob_refcnt', ctypes.c_ssize_t),
>>>>   )
>>>> 
>>>> pythonapi.PyList_Append.argtypes = [ctypes.py_object, ctypes.py_object]
>>>> 
>>>> def refcount(v):
>>>>   return PyObject.from_address(id(v)).ob_refcnt
>>> 
>>> The quoted code is what I was referring to in:
>>> ====
>>> ctypes & cffi likely wouldn't help as much in the case, since they
>>> don't eliminate the need to come up with custom code for parts 3 & 4,
>>> they just let you write that logic in Python rather than C.
>>> ====
>> 
>> And earlier Nick wrote:
>>> 1. The test case itself (what action to take, which assertions to make about it)
>>> 2. The C code to make the API call you want to test
>>> 3. The Python->C interface for the test case from 1 to pass test
>>> values in to the code from 2
>>> 4. The C->Python interface to get state of interest from 2 back to the
>>> test case from 1
>> 
>> For all of Cython, ctypes and cffi you almost never have to write (2), and hence (3) and (4), but can write that code in Python.
> 
> Which then means that you have a mix of Python and C in many cases.

Not really, for many cases the only C code required is the actual CPython API. 

> I guess
> that's what you meant with your next sentence:
> 
>> This is at the code of making it harder to know which bits of the CPython API are used in step (2), which makes it harder to review a testcase. 

Not really. What I was trying to say is that when you use C code to make the API call and collect information you have complete control of which APIs are used (in the PyList_Append test case you can be 100% sure that the test code only calls that API), with ctypes/cffi/Cython you have less control over the exact API calls made which could affect the test. Making assertions about refcounts is one example, my test case with ctypes works but you have to think about what the code does before you understand why the test case works and tests what you want to test.  In general that?s not a good quality for test code, that should be as obviously correct as possible. 

Cython is probably the best option in this regard (from what I?ve seen so far) because you can in the end basically write C code with Python syntax where needed.

> 
> Not sure I understand this correctly, but I think we're on the same page
> here: writing test code in C is cumbersome, writing test code in a mix of C
> and Python across different files is aweful. And making it difficult to
> write or even just review test code simply means that people will either
> waste their precious contribution time on it, or try to get around it.

Awful is a strong word. The separation of the test case in two different languages in two different source files is definitely less than ideal. 

> 
> 
>> BTW. In other projects I use tests there almost all of the test code is in C, the unittest runner only calls a C function and uses the result of that function to deduce if the test passed or failed. This only works nicely for fairly simple tests (such as the example test in this thread), not for more complicated and interesting tests due to having to write more C code.
> 
> I totally agree with that. For less trivial tests, people will often want
> to stear the test case at the C level, because some things are really
> difficult to do from Python. Good luck making assertions about reference
> counts when you're orchestrating the C-API through ctypes.

I agree, see above.


> And this is
> where Cython shines ? your code *always* ends up running in C, regardless
> of how much of it is plain Python. But at any point, you can do pretty
> arbitrary C things, all in the same function. And unittest can execute that
> function directly for you, without having to write a Python wrapper or
> separate test runner.
> 
> And for the really hard cases, you can resort to writing a literal C code
> snippet in your Cython source file (as a string) and let Cython drop it
> into the file it generates, e.g. to quickly define a macro, a little C
> function, or an interface wrapper around a C macro that would otherwise be
> difficult to test. That little feature removes the last reason for
> resorting to a separate C file.

Another reason for liking the translation to C is that you can use and test the macros in the CPython API, which is something you definitely cannot do with ctypes.

I have no strong opinion on using Cython for tests or in the stdlib, other than that it is a fairly large dependency.  I do think that adding a ?Cython-lite? tool the CPython distribution would be less ideal, creating and maintaining that tool would be a lot of work without clear benefits over just using Cython.

Ronald