I'm a little leery about this. We don't test at the lldb_private layer because those tests are likely to be fragile and easily broken. For utility classes like NamedPipe I guess I don't so much mind, but I'm not sure its a great idea to do this more generally.
Jim > On Jul 16, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Todd Fiala <tfi...@google.com> wrote: > > Hey guys, > > Sometimes I have smaller bits of code I'd like to test in LLDB as I'm > developing them (i.e. TDD-style) that are C++ and won't be exposed directly > via Python. I'm not sure I've seen any facilities in the LLDB tests for > adding such tests. Essentially I'd want to do something like a gtest or > cppunit test. > > Do we have any mechanism for doing that currently? If we do, what is it? If > we don't, how about adding some mechanism to do it after we figure out how > we'd like to approach it? Or, if you have thoughts on a good, simple way to > do it from Python that doesn't require extra Python bindings just to do it, > that'd be fine by me as well. > > If we want to take a concrete example, here is one: I'm adding a NamedPipe > class under the host dir. I'd like to make some simple tests for it, and > test it under Linux, Windows and MacOSX. In the case of Windows, it would be > the only real way for me to test that it's behaving exactly as I want at this > point. This isn't the only time I've wanted C++-level tests at a fairly fine > granularity, but it's a good example of it. > > Any thoughts? > -- > Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | tfi...@google.com | 650-943-3180 > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
