fjricci added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988#559775, @tfiala wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988#559314, @fjricci wrote: > > > For an example of something that couldn't be disabled with the original > > implementation, consider a test like: > > > > `CreateDuringStepTestCase.test_step_inst` > > > > Disabling by method name (`test_step_inst`) would also disable > > `CreateDuringInstructionStepTestCase.test_step_inst`. > > > I see what you're saying there. > > The part you're missing is that the Test Case class name itself does not have > to be unique, either. i.e. You *can* have two CreateDuringStepTestCase > classes in different files. Nothing uniquifies at that level. Ahh, I see. I didn't realize that we could have duplication in the test case names as well. > That is why I'm saying you need to include the module name, which comes from > the filename, or have it be something like FileBaseName:TestCase.test_method. > I have to do this in the test runner architecture for this very reason. And > you will find at least some test cases that are cut and pasted and therefore > have duplicate test case names (at least, they used to exist, and nothing > enforces them being different in the runner logic). I'll try this then. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
