Any chance you could whip up an actual example? Like the setup necessary, the exact expression to test, a few opeartions that change the state of the expression, and the expected result after each operation?
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com> wrote: > The answer might be simply that what I’m thinking of isn’t so much a “unit > test” as a fancier kind of assertion – one that requires a significant > amount of extra computation. > Such an assertion might be enabled by a setting, and then run in situ > whenever LLDB is in the right state. > E.g., when we happen to be dematerializing an expression result, run a > bunch of extra tests to make sure the variable is in the state we expect it > to be in. > > Sean > > On Oct 3, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Todd Fiala <tfi...@google.com> wrote: > > But we're not talking about only one or only the other. > > I'm as much as possible going to only use gtests when I want to verify a > class does what I want, typically doing it in isolation from everything > else. > > If/when I need to deal with some real world lldb class configuration doing > something complex, I might be interested in the python setup, gtest test > case side. Not entirely sure how we'd wire that all up but that's > something we can investigate. > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Todd Fiala <tfi...@google.com> wrote: > >> > 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 >> >> > > > -- > 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
