On 21/02/2019 00:03, Davide Italiano wrote:
I found out that there are tests that effectively require
interactivity. Some of the lldb-mi ones are an example.
A common use-case is that of sending SIGTERM in a loop to make sure
`lldb-mi` doesn't crash and handle the signal correctly.

This functionality is really hard to replicate in lit_as is_.
Any ideas on how we could handle this case?

How hard is it to import a new version of pexpect which supports python3 and stuff?

I'm not sure how the situation is on darwin, but I'd expect (:P) that most linux systems either already have it installed, or have an easy way to do so. So we may not even be able to get away with just using the system one and skipping tests when it's not present.

BTW, for lldb-mi I would actually argue that it should *not* use pexpect :D. Interactivity is one thing, and I'm very much in favour of keeping that ability, but pexpect is not a prerequisite for that. For me, the main advantage of pexpect is that it emulates a real terminal. However, lldb-mi does not need that stuff. It doesn't have any command line editing capabilities or similar. It's expecting to communicate with an IDE over a pipe, and that's it.

Given that, it should be fairly easy to rewrite the lldb-mi tests to work on top of the standard python "subprocess" library. While we're doing that, we might actually fix some of the issues that have been bugging everyone in the lldb-mi tests. At least for me, the most annoying thing was that when lldb-mi fails to produce the expected output, the test does not fail immediately, but instead the implementation of self.expect("^whatever") waits until the timeout expires, optimistically hoping that it will find some output that match the pattern.

If we change this to something like self.expect_reply("^whatever"), and make the "expect_reply" function smart enough to know that lldb-mi's response should come as a single line, and if the first line doesn't match, it should abort, this problem would be fixed. While we're at it, we could also tune the failure message so that it's more helpful than the current implementation. Plus, that would solve the issue of not being able to run lldb-mi tests on windows.

Anyway, that's what I'd do. I was actually planning to look into that soon, but then I roped myself into writing a yaml (de)serialization tool for minidumps, so I have no idea when I will get back to that. I hope some of this is helpful nonetheless.

lldb-dev mailing list

Reply via email to