google
Avoid exception in registration of service when the alias and class are the same and show warning only
From service_manager.py, it provides method register to register service:
def register(self, alias, service_class, configs=None, start_service=True):
"""Registers a service.
This will create a service instance, starts the service, and adds the
instance to the mananger.
Args:
alias: string, the alias for this instance.
service_class: class, the service class to instantiate.
configs: (optional) config object to pass to the service class's
constructor.
start_service: bool, whether to start the service instance or not.
Default is True.
"""
if not inspect.isclass(service_class):
raise Error(self._device, '"%s" is not a class!' % service_class)
if not issubclass(service_class, base_service.BaseService):
raise Error(
self._device,
'Class %s is not a subclass of BaseService!' % service_class,
)
if alias in self._service_objects:
raise Error(
self._device,
'A service is already registered with alias "%s".' % alias,
)
...
For some case, different layers of testing will try to register the same service (e.g. uiautomator) and cause Error which is annoying and too strict somehow. So I propose to enhance the checking condition to just show warning when the input alias and service_class are actually the same of the registered service object. e.g.:
def register(self, alias, service_class, configs=None, start_service=True):
"""Registers a service.
This will create a service instance, starts the service, and adds the
instance to the mananger.
Args:
alias: string, the alias for this instance.
service_class: class, the service class to instantiate.
configs: (optional) config object to pass to the service class's
constructor.
start_service: bool, whether to start the service instance or not.
Default is True.
"""
if not inspect.isclass(service_class):
raise Error(self._device, '"%s" is not a class!' % service_class)
if not issubclass(service_class, base_service.BaseService):
raise Error(
self._device,
'Class %s is not a subclass of BaseService!' % service_class,
)
# New code here
if alias in self._service_objects and self._service_objects[alias].__class__ == service_class:
logging.warning('Service with alias=%s has been registered as %s!', alias, service_class)
return
if alias in self._service_objects:
raise Error(
self._device,
'A service is already registered with alias "%s".' % alias,
)
So we don't need to add code snippet all the places to ensure we don't register same service more than one time. e.g.:
if 'uiautomator' not in self._ad.services.list_live_services():
self._ad.services.register(
uiautomator.ANDROID_SERVICE_NAME,
uiautomator.UiAutomatorService)
Instead of letting different layers register the same service, why not putting all the service registeration logic into one place?
@mhaoli ,
Good question! Actually, for our code base, we did put all the registration of services in one place. However, we couldn't avoid the other utilities (third-party) to register what ever services they want at what ever time they prefer.
Ps. Currently, our temporary approach is to unregister the uiautomator service right after instantiate the target object to avoid confliction at later time from our code base to register the uiautomator (Or we could also improve the registration process to check for duplicate registration as well.)
If so, I'd suggest asking the utility owner to check for duplicate registration.
My main concern for your proposal is that it's in the base_service class, so this modification means duplicate registration is allowed and ignored for all services. This is true for uiatuomator, but not true for all services, e.g. service for screen recording, service for starting a user session with specific arguments. For these services, duplicate registration should trigger an error.
Hi @mhaoli ,
Your concern and comment is fair and well understood. What if we could provide one more argument to let user decides the behavior they want such as a allow_duplicate? So we could decide which service we want to avoid exception and allow duplicate registration. e.g.:
def register(
self, alias, service_class, configs=None, start_service=True, allow_duplicate = False):
"""Registers a service.
This will create a service instance, starts the service, and adds the
instance to the mananger.
Args:
alias: string, the alias for this instance.
service_class: class, the service class to instantiate.
configs: (optional) config object to pass to the service class's
constructor.
start_service: bool, whether to start the service instance or not.
Default is True.
allow_duplicate: bool, True to ignore the registration of duplicate service.
"""
if not inspect.isclass(service_class):
raise Error(self._device, '"%s" is not a class!' % service_class)
if not issubclass(service_class, base_service.BaseService):
raise Error(
self._device,
'Class %s is not a subclass of BaseService!' % service_class,
)
# New code here
if all([
alias in self._service_objects,
self._service_objects[alias].__class__ == service_class,
allow_duplicate]):
logging.warning('Service with alias=%s has been registered as %s!', alias, service_class)
return
...
I'm ok with the new proposal if you are willing to create a PR for it.
@xpconanfan any objection to this public API change: Add an arg to ignore the registration error if the service class is already registered with the given alias.
Doesn't look like something worth changing public apis for? Just catch the exception in your own code and handle it?
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, 7:59 PM Minghao Li @.***> wrote:
I'm ok with the new proposal if you are willing to create a PR for it.
@xpconanfan https://github.com/xpconanfan any objection to this public API change: Add an arg to ignore the registration error if the service class is already registered with the given alias.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/google/mobly/issues/919#issuecomment-2062904437, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARDNZMCZK43VLKXHXFOMWLY54ZIJAVCNFSM6AAAAABGG4RNXWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANRSHEYDINBTG4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Hi @xpconanfan ,
For Just catch the exception in your own code and handle it?
That will work. But the try/catch or the code to examine if the
uiautomatoris already registered will be duplicate in many places. Because there might be more than one third party tools that will useuiautomatoror even more other services that our testing will register too and cause confliction. So with this feature, we could useallow_duplicate = Trueto ignore those confliction in the root place.
Then for Doesn't look like something worth changing public apis for?
I think with feature, we could save a lot of duplicate code such as below code snippet (Or to add a complex try/catch to ensure the Error is caused by duplicate registration).
if 'uiautomator' in self._ad.services.list_live_services():
# Skip registration of 'uiautomator'
If it looks good to both of you, I will prepare a PR. Thanks!
This is more reason to not allow dup names.
We are not changing public API for this.
It seems like you can easily just check and unregister, then register again.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 1:24 AM John @.***> wrote:
Hi @xpconanfan https://github.com/xpconanfan ,
For Just catch the exception in your own code and handle it?
That will work. But the try/catch or the code to examine if the uiautomator is already registered will be duplicate in many places. Because there might be more than one third party tools that will use uiautomator or even more other services that our testing will register too and cause confliction. So with this feature, we could use allow_duplicate = True to ignore those confliction in the root place.
Then for Doesn't look like something worth changing public apis for?
I think with feature, we could save a lot of duplicate code such as below code snippet (Or to add a complex try/catch to ensure the Error is caused by duplicate registration).
if 'uiautomator' in self._ad.services.list_live_services(): # Skip registration of 'uiautomator'If it looks good to both of you, I will prepare a PR. Thanks!
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/google/mobly/issues/919#issuecomment-2063308037, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARDNZKKNPAO7FZU7EB6BW3Y557KLAVCNFSM6AAAAABGG4RNXWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANRTGMYDQMBTG4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Hi @xpconanfan ,
What with accessing private field (self._ad.services) isn't a good practice, what with the default value of new argument allow_duplicate is given as False which aligns with original behavior, I believe the original users won't be impacted. But the benefit is that we could use a more native way to get rid of this dup-registration confliction. Does it make sense to you? Thanks.
Not sure what you mean
services is not private.
_ad is "private only bc you made it so, which doesn't make sense in the
first place
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 5:49 PM John @.***> wrote:
Hi @xpconanfan https://github.com/xpconanfan ,
What with accessing private field (self._ad.services) isn't a good practice, what with the default value of new argument allow_duplicate is given as False which aligns with original behavior, I believe the original users won't be impacted. But the benefit is that we could use a more native way to get rid of this dup-registration confliction. Does it make sense to you? Thanks.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/google/mobly/issues/919#issuecomment-2065553533, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARDNZK3NFJLDGOTB3G6NUTY6BS2LAVCNFSM6AAAAABGG4RNXWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANRVGU2TGNJTGM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: <google/mobly/issues/919/2065553533 @.***>
Hi @xpconanfan ,
You are right about "services" is not private. "_ad" is "private only bc you made it so, which doesn't make sense in the . I made wrong assumption here. It should could be improved by our inner codebase.
If support a new argument doesn't sound like a good idea to you, let's return to the original issue, is it possible to let ServiceManager support query of the registered alias name of a certain service class. Because below code snippet
if 'uiautomator' in self._ad.services.list_live_services():
# Skip registration of 'uiautomator'
will still have issue while the UI automator isn't registered with the name as uiautomator.
So one idea is to have new method such as:
>>> dut = bttc.get('07311JECB08252', init_snippet_uiautomator=True)
>>> from snippet_uiautomator import uiautomator
>>> dut.services.get_service_name_by_class(uiautomator.UiAutomatorService)
'uiautomator'
PoC code of method get_service_name_by_class:
def get_service_name_by_class(self, service_class) -> str | None:
"""Gets service name by service class."""
for alias, service_object in self._service_objects.items():
if service_object.__class__ == service_class:
return alias
return None
So we could use this method to confirm the registration of uiautomator.UiAutomatorService and confirm the registered name is as what we expected.
@johnklee The service manager already has has_service_by_name so you can easily do self.ad.services.has_service_by_name('uiautomator') right?
@xpconanfan
Many thanks for the kind help. Yes, indeed this API could provide us better flexibility to resolve the problem we faced. Let me close the issue as well.