Tool restructuring #311
Tool restructuring #311
Conversation
|
Like the idea, I guess @adobekan would agree, as we have discussed a similar idea. One main advantage would also be that you can "pip install " vss-tools, import sutff and create your custom exporter without touching COVESA upstream code. Today users are basically "forced" to fork, and I have seen such internals forks flying/rotting around. Resistance to pick up new features upstream would likely be lower, if you just need to upgrade a dependency |
vspec2x_abstract.py
Outdated
| def main(self, arguments): | ||
| initLogging() | ||
|
|
||
| parser.add_argument('-I', '--include-dir', action='append', metavar='dir', type=str, default=[], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be good to change logic, that somehthing like vspec2json "owns" the parser for command line arguments and can include/instanctiate vpsec2x with a feature array (do I know instances/structs/uuid/extended attributes), and then vspec2x would "add" generic options , and leave options out that a tool does not support anyway
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be quite easy to do some changes of the current solution. Today we have if , if looking for instance at vss2json.py two methods:
def feature_supported(feature_name: str)
def add_arguments(parser: argparse.ArgumentParser):
Where add_arguments is for adding exporter-specific arguments, and feature_supported to answer yes/no on features like "no expand" (for struct we have a different mechanism), but I agree that passing in some form of config array would be a nicer solution, as we then could exclude non-supported arguments already when you do -h.
|
Meeting notes:
|
erikbosch
force-pushed
the
erik_vss_restructure
branch
3 times, most recently
from
6db9454 to
fc73044
Compare
erikbosch
force-pushed
the
erik_vss_restructure
branch
from
079ab4d to
916cb28
Compare
erikbosch
force-pushed
the
erik_vss_restructure
branch
2 times, most recently
from
58b17e9 to
638fd5b
Compare
|
Ready for review new. |
erikbosch
force-pushed
the
erik_vss_restructure
branch
3 times, most recently
from
ff3b513 to
4f65f31
Compare
|
@adobekan - could you take a look and check if you have any objections to the content of this PR. If not I will merge it. |
|
Meeting notes:
|
|
MoM: Ok to merge, after the static id PR has been merged |
Refactoring tool structure so that there is not a single entrypoint (vspec2x.py) but rather individual ones. Makes it easier to add custom generators. Signed-off-by: Erik Jaegervall <[email protected]>
erikbosch
force-pushed
the
erik_vss_restructure
branch
from
4f65f31 to
773ad87
Compare
This is an idea I have for restructuring of vss-tools. Ass of today we have vspec2x.py as main entry point. It explicitly lists all exporters and import all of them as well. This has some drawbacks:
vspec2x.pyAn alternative solution would be to instead have
vspec2xas an abstract tool that require an exporter as input. That would make it easier to create you own proprietary tool/exporter, you do not need to modifyvspec2x.py, instead you could just create you own exporter and give it as an argument when calling vspec2x. This PR shows how that could look like for vspec2json. The filevspec2x_abstract.pyis intended to replacevspec2x.pyIf we go this path we could as a second step consider refactoring our vss-tools PyPI package so that exporters with "heavy" dependencies (big size, or dependencies that only are supported on a limited set of platforms, or dependencies to less user friendly licenses) are put in a separate PyPI package. A possible example could be graphql. We could also possibly add generic exporter functionality/hooks so that exporters can add or control additional semantic checks or processing steps if needed. A typical example could be the recent discussion to expand signal tree based on allowed units. Maybe that is a feature that is possible or even mandatory for one exporter, but totally useless for others.