Trial currently does some black magic to support remote reporters, defined in t.trial.remote. What use cases does t.trial.remote implement? Does anyone actually use it?
Not me.
Rumour has it that it was originally written to make buildbot easier to write. However, I'm told that buildbot just parses stdio output.
Both rumors are correct. The buildbot currently just captures stdout/stderr and parses the last few lines for the test-count summaries. The original idea was to make a PB connection from the trial process to the parent buildbot slave, and send fine-grained test results over that connection. To accomplish this, we (slyphon and I) were planning to write a Reporter class that would actually be distributed with the buildbot, then use a trial option like --reporter-class=buildbot.trialreporter.RemoteReporter or something. Another direction was to use PB running over stdin/stdout, using the same scheme. The goal was to get a tuple of (testname, results, exceptions, log.msg output, stdout, stderr, starttime, finishtime) for each test, over on the buildslave, so that the buildbot status reporting could give extremely fine-grained information about the tests which failed (perhaps including full stack traces with local variables for the ERROR cases). The most important thing to me is that we can get a list of test names and their individual results, but having the trial.log text for each one separately would make debugging test failures a lot easier (and the buildbot could arrange to just mail the relevant parts of the logs to the person responsible for that test, instead of sending the whole multi-megabyte logfile). If I remember correctly, the extra Reporter functionality was there to give buildbot enough feedback about tests starting/stopping to provide useful status information (specifically to accurately update the ETA timing info: it could eventually figure out that 45 tests out of 90 total means that it's N% complete and therefore has an ETA of 2 minutes, etc). It's been a while since I looked at the code, though. I gave up on it at some point, mainly because the reactor cleanup routines were getting in the way. (somewhat embarrassing because I was the one who put many of those cleanup routines in there in the first place). Basically the PB connection that was established by our RemoteReporter was torn down with a vengeance by the clean-up-all-Selectables pass, flunking the first test and condemning the rest to be run with no hope of ever delivering their status to the buildslave. I decided to put off the whole clever machine-parseable status thing until the trial's reactor cleanup had a way to let specific selectables stick around. So if that code is in the way, don't keep it around on account of the buildbot. Having a pluggable reporter will be handy once reactor cleanup is more convenient, but as long as that feature is retained in some form I think we'll be able to figure out a way to get the status information to the buildslave later. cheers, -Brian PS: another approach (implemented in trial at some point, I think, but I don't believe I ever got buildbot to use it) was to jelly some status objects and fling them out stdout in the hopes of being picked up by whoever launched trial. This might have worked better, because one-way jelly over stdout wouldn't have involved a Selectable (unlike two-way PB over stdio), so the cleanup might not have stomped on it. However, I was uncomfortable with the potential version skew of the code creating these jellied objects (coming from twisted.trial) and the code that was hoping to interpret them (coming from buildbot). The pluggable Reporter allowed the buildbot to supply the code on both sides of the wire, which struck me as a better long-term solution.