> Why not just make it a python test? I think I see the usefulness for it. You really want to test a C++ class at a low level and make sure it's working right. But the state machine needed to feed it inputs and outputs is complex enough that it would take a lot of code to set that up right. And you want it to always reflect what lldb is doing, not some non-real-world static test environment where it can get out of sync with the real lldb code.
-Todd On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >> >> >> > -- Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | tfi...@google.com
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
