[PATCH] tests: make --json run-tests option create a valid json file

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 01/17/2016 07:08 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-01-17 at 11:49 -0800, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>>
>> On 01/16/2016 05:14 PM, Laurent Charignon wrote:
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User Laurent Charignon <lcharignon at fb.com>
>>> # Date 1452993245 28800
>>> #      Sat Jan 16 17:14:05 2016 -0800
>>> # Node ID cbd838c46ccaded263066898c09e80fda842cdab
>>> # Parent  443848eece189002c542339dc1cf84f49a94c824
>>> tests: make --json run-tests option create a valid json file
>>>
>>> Before this patch, the report.json was not a valid json. This patch adds a
>>> test
>>> to make sure that the file can be read with the python json module.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tests/run-tests.py b/tests/run-tests.py
>>> --- a/tests/run-tests.py
>>> +++ b/tests/run-tests.py
>>> @@ -1740,7 +1740,7 @@
>>>                                        }
>>>                                outcome[tc.name] = tres
>>>                        jsonout = json.dumps(outcome, sort_keys=True,
>>> indent=4)
>>> -                    fp.writelines(("testreport =", jsonout))
>>> +                    fp.writelines(("{\"testreport\" :", jsonout, "}"))
>>
>> Oops, good find.
>>
>> We should probably use json dumps for everything.
>>
>> Adding "outcome" to a "{"testreport": outcome}" dictionnary and using
>> json.dumps on that. The current mix of library and manual general feels
>> strange to me.
>
> Is there any advantage to wrapping the whole thing in another dict?

I can easily imagine generic data about the test running process (total 
time, revision used for the test, load average, etc).

I think it is safer to keep to the current structure (providing it is fixed)

-- 
Pierre-Yves David