Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220118190922.1557074-1-dlatypov@google.com> <CABVgOSnY8Ctc9vuVX+Fjmmd3L5kpXnzMXJQ0LPXAgmjCKsrYYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGS_qxqx+wcruc7DAD9TQjk27OF+VDo1n9S6atRx+dDG5cr=6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGS_qxqx+wcruc7DAD9TQjk27OF+VDo1n9S6atRx+dDG5cr=6g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 11:55:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxpRqOAoBbkkFttZgB_Zm+KM=pwprgZ0wzDROh21mO0r8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] kunit: tool: drop mostly unused KunitResult.result field
To:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 9:19 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
> > That being said, I can live with the current solution, but'd ideally
> > like a comment or something to make the return value Tuple a bit more
> > obvious.
>
> A comment to explain that Tuple == multiple return values from a func?
> Or something else?

Friendly ping.
Do we want a comment like this?

# Note: Python uses tuples internally for multiple return values
def foo() -> Tuple[int, int]
   return 0, 1

I can go ahead and add that and send a v2 out.

FYI,  if you do this in a REPL
>>> a = foo()
>>> type(a)
<class 'tuple'>

The syntax for `a, b = foo()` is just using Python's unpacking feature, i.e.
b, c = (1, 2)

So it's all just syntactic sugar around tuples.

>
> Also ah, I thought we had more instances of multiple return in kunit.py.
> Looks like the only other is get_source_tree_ops_from_qemu_config().
> isolate_ktap_output() technically shows this off as well, but via yields.
>
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > -- David