> On Oct 2, 2014, at 9:27 PM, Todd Fiala <tfi...@google.com> wrote: > > Hey Sean! > …
Thanks for the introduction! It looks like this is definitely in the direction of what I want. > If we want to do collaboration tests (integration tests, etc.), we're > probably into the "should be in python category", but we might have a few > low-level multi-class testing scenarios where we might want a different > gtest/functional, gtest/integration or something similar directory structure > to handle those. Would be good to have discussion around that if we find a > valid use for it. One thing I would like to be able to do for the expression parser is unit test in the context of a stopped process. I’m thinking of scenarios where I’d like to test e.g. the Materializer’s ability to read in variable data and make correct ValueObjects. One way to achieve this that comes to mind is to have a hook into the unit tests from the Python test suite, so we can set up the program’s state appropriately using our normal Python apparatus and then exercise exactly the functionality we want. Once we’ve got that kind of hook, we could just run all unit tests right from the Python test suite and avoid having another entry point. If you want IDE-friendly output, you could have an IDE-level target that runs test/dotest.py but singles out the unit tests. What do you think? Sean _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
