I think it diminishes their usefulness if they're only available to people willing to run them a specific way. The python support on Windows isn't as rosy as it is on other platforms, and it's still very difficult to build LLDB with python support on Windows. I might be the only person doing it. I'm trying to improve it, but I don't see it being in the same place as it is on other platforms for a while.
Even ignoring that though, I think if your test needs to do setup in python, it should just be a regular python test of the public API like everything else. Regardless, the functionality available to you from C++ is a superset of that available to you from python. You can even use the actual public API from C++, which is the same as what you'd be doing in python. If you actually need to piggyback off of lots of already-written python code, then I'm wondering why this particular test is better suited for a gtest. Why not just make it a python test? On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com> wrote: > Zach, > > I can live with two entry points – one without the Python dependency, one > accessible through Python. As you (and Greg, in the past) suggest, we can > have a special public API for running unit tests – probably only in debug > builds – and use that API from Python. > > I’m not sure that all internal unit tests should do their setup in C++. I > think it makes the test more fragile – and wastes a lot of the machinery we > already have – to write a bunch of process-control logic in C++ when what I > actually want to test is something specific in an unrelated class. LLDB is > pretty closely tied to Python – for the test cases I write for the > expression parser, I think I’d be willing to mandate that Python be > available rather than make setup more challenging. > > So that both use cases can coexist, we can just make sure that both the > gtest runner and the SB API have the ability to run a subset of the unit > tests; the gtest runner runs all those that don’t require external setup, > and the SB API can select the tests that need to run with a specific > initial setup. > > Is that something that gtest would support? > > Sean > > On Oct 3, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > I don't think the unit tests should depend on the python tests. They > should be self contained. In other words, the unit tests must be useful to > someone who is compiling without support for embedded python. I wouldn't > want to have a unit test which is only useful if it's called from Python > which has already done some initial setup. Still, if you want to avoid > having another entry poitn for convenience, you could expose something from > the public API that allows you to just say "run all the unittests". But > there shouldn't be any setup in the python. All the setup necessary to run > a given test should happen in C++. > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com> > wrote: > >> >> > 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
