> On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > We'll probably rewrite tests that we find are failing specifically as a > result of issues like this, but I agree it's not worth re-writing everything > else except on an as-needed basis. > > To make the distinction explicit and enforce it kind of at an organnizational > level, would it be worth creating folders under lldb/test like > lldb/test/commands, and recommending that all HandleCommand tests to go there?
Yes, that might help. Note that the test/README-testsuite explicitly states this policy: o Writing test cases: We strongly prefer writing test cases using the SB API's rather than the runCmd & expect. Unless you are actually testing some feature of the command line, please don't write command based tests. For historical reasons there are plenty of examples of tests in the test suite that use runCmd where they shouldn't, but don't copy them, copy the plenty that do use the SB API's instead. etc... Anything that will make that policy more explicit is to the good. Jim > > Possibly unrelated question: But in regards to this api test vs. > HandleCommand test situation, is that what the purpose of the > @python_api_test decorator is (and is this decorator even still useful)? > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:42 AM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote: > I have held from the beginning that the only tests that should be written > using HandleCommand are those that explicitly test command behavior, and if > it is possible to write a test using the SB API you should always do it that > way for the very reasons you cite. Not everybody agreed with me at first, so > we ended up with a bunch of tests that do complex things using HandleCommand > where they really ought not to. I'm not sure it is worth the time to go > rewrite all those tests, but we shouldn't write any new tests that way. > > Jim > > > > On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev > > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > The past few weeks I've spent a lot of time xfailing the rest of the > > failing tests on windows so we can enable tests to run on the bots. > > > > One thing I ran into more frequently than I would have liked is that the > > tests were failing not because the functionality is broken, but because the > > substrings being grepped for in the output had a slightly different format > > on Windows. The pattern for tests is frequently something like: > > > > result = runCommand(<some command>) > > self.expect(<result matches some regex>) > > > > A good example of this is that when you do a backtrace, on windows you > > might see a fully demangled function name such as a.out`void foo(int x), > > whereas on other platforms you might just see a.out`foo. > > > > I saw the reverse situation as well, where a test was passing but shouldn't > > have because it was actually broken, but due to the impreciseness of > > grepping output the grep was suceeding. Specifically, this was happening > > on a test that verified function parameters. it launched a program with 3 > > arguments, and then looked for "(int)argc=3" in the frame info. It was > > broken on Windows because argc was pointing to junk memory, so it was > > actually printing "(int)argc=3248902" in the output. Test was passing, > > even though it was broken. > > > > Rather than make the regexes more complicated, I think the right fix here > > is to stop using the command system and grepping to write tests. Just go > > through the api for everything, including verifying the result. In the > > second case, for example, you launch the process, set the breakpoint, wait > > for it to stop, find the argument named argc, and verify that it's value is > > 3. > > > > I don't want to propose going back and rewriting every single test to do > > this, but I want to see how people feel about moving toward this model > > going forward as the default method of writing tests. > > > > I do still think we need some tests that verify commands run, but I think > > those tests should focus not on doing complicated interactions with the > > debugger, and instead just verifying that things parse correctly and the > > command is configured correctly, with the underlying functionality being > > tested by the api tests. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
