> -----Original Message----- > From: lldb-dev <lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Pavel Labath > via lldb-dev > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:35 AM > To: Davide Italiano <dccitali...@gmail.com> > Cc: LLDB <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect > > 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.
This would be OK, I think, as long as "expect_reply" has the option to do a partial match, or a regex match. Some of the lldb-mi tests only look for certain parts of the reply. Also, until Python2 is declared dead and not supported at all by lldb, we should be able to run this under 2 or 3. > 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. > > cheers, > pavel > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > email@example.com > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev