Zach, that’s what I’m thinking. Then we can turn that checking on as part of specific expressions in the Python test suite. If there are simple, class-level tests I can run without any setup, though, I’ll try putting them into gtest.
Sean > On Oct 3, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > If that's the case then I'm leaning even more away from using gtest for this. > gtest is just for producing a standalone executable that can be run in > isolation and check that your classes behave the way you expect them to > behave. > > How about just adding a setting to LLDB: > > setting set verify-expression-dematerialization true > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com > <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto:scalla...@apple.com>> wrote: >>> >>> > On Oct 2, 2014, at 9:27 PM, Todd Fiala <tfi...@google.com >>> > <mailto: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 >> <mailto:tfi...@google.com> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | tfi...@google.com >> <mailto:tfi...@google.com> >> > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
