homepage

I recently changed packaging.util.byte_compile, the function used by the build_py and install_lib commands, so that it can create .pyc and/or .pyo files independently of the calling’s Python -O or -B flags (dad02a080bbc), but I think I introduced a bug. To check that bug and fully test byte_compile before I further simplify the function and backport the whole fix to distutils, I wanted to add tests that load a .pyc or .pyo file and make sure that the right optimization level is used (nothing for --compile, level one for --optimize=1, level 2 for --optimize=2).
In the attached patch, I run a Python with -O, -OO or no flag in a subprocess to import a module that prints different things depending on the optimization level. The .pyc or .pyo file is already created by packaging, but I have no check that makes sure that they are not recreated (which I don’t want) and I don’t know if the optimizations in compile.c are applied during byte-compilation or after import (which would make my tests not exercise what I want).
(I tried to use imp.load_module at first but it’s not very friendly. Other ideas that I had after the patch was done: Use subprocess + imp so that I can import pyc or pyo as I wish; use open + dis module.)
So, could you import experts review the functions added in packaging.tests.support and tell me if they exercise what I want?

(For the reference, the bug I added is this: http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/c10946a17420#l6.45
p7g.util.byte_compile calls py_compile.compile with a filename ending in .pyc or .pyo as appropriate, but the optimization level in the py_compile.compile function depends on the calling Python’s -O option. When byte_compile wants to create a .pyo file but is run under a python without -O, it spawns a subprocess with the -O option. The fix I did made sure that the filename used (pyc or pyo) did not depend on the calling Python’s -O, *but* it should not have removed the setting of -O/-OO in the subprocess, as it’s the only way to control the optimization level in py_compile.compile before 3.2. I think I will use a py_compile or compileall function so that I can have control over the optimization level from Python, which will let me remove the inelegant spawning in byte_compile, and I will backport that function for distutils2.
If this makes no sense, please ignore. I’m not sure I would have understood what I’m talking about a year ago.)

What exactly do you consider to backport to distutils?

See http://bugs.python.org/issue12119#msg146943 

Nick, would you have a bit of time to read my OP and reply?

Your basic approach looks sensible to me.
One trick I use in test_cmd_line_script to prevent recreation is to simply delete the source file. If the source is gone, implicit recreation is impossible. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for __pycache__, since the cached version will be ignored if the original goes missing.
One useful explicit check (as per #14443) would be to ensure the magic number and other attributes are as expected:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/57d558f1904d/Lib/importlib/_bootstrap.py#l444
You can also pass the "-B" flag to your testing subprocesses, which will switch off the implicit bytecode generation.

Looks like someone should revise this patch taking in to account Nick's feedback, and updating it to apply to distutils instead of the now-defunct distutils2/packaging. 
Moving stage to 'needs patch'.

I don’t think tests add value at this stage of the life of distutils; inclined to close this.