[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

davide abandoned this revision. davide added a comment. Cleaning up my queue. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

First, I want to apologise for derailing the tab completion review. However, now that the cat's out of the bag, let me elaborate on what I meant. For example, this is how a typical instruction emulation test looks right now: TEST_F(Testx86AssemblyInspectionEngine,

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

Ah, no. Pavel suggested that the unwind plan unittests should be turned into FileCheck tests, and then Davide suggested that he'd heard unwind testing is difficult (he was conflating the unwind sources -> UnwindPlan IR conversions and the runtime use of UnwindPlans to walk the stack & find

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

Sure I don’t think anyone disputes that, but I thought we were discussing an ideal end state On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:31 PM Jason Molenda wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:52 PM

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:52 PM Jason Molenda wrote: >> >> >> > On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Zachary Turner via Phabricator >> > wrote: >> > >> > zturner

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:52 PM Jason Molenda wrote: > > > > On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Zachary Turner via Phabricator < > revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > zturner added a comment. > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1005513, @jasonmolenda wrote: > > > > I

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Zachary Turner via Phabricator > wrote: > > zturner added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1005513, @jasonmolenda wrote: > >> No, the unwind unittests that exist today should stay written as unit tests. >> These

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1005513, @jasonmolenda wrote: > No, the unwind unittests that exist today should stay written as unit tests. > These are testing the conversion of native unwind formats -- for instance, > eh_frame, compact unwind, or instruction

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

jasonmolenda added a comment. No, the unwind unittests that exist today should stay written as unit tests. These are testing the conversion of native unwind formats -- for instance, eh_frame, compact unwind, or instruction analysis -- into the intermediate UnwindPlan representation in lldb.

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

davide added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1004807, @labath wrote: > (Btw, if you're looking for things to FileCheck-ify, I think the stuff under > `lldb/unittests/UnwindAssembly` is a prime candidate and has a much higher > bang/buck ratio.) If you have ideas on how to

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

labath added a comment. (Btw, if you're looking for things to FileCheck-ify, I think the stuff under `lldb/unittests/UnwindAssembly` is a prime candidate and has a much higher bang/buck ratio.) https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048 ___ lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

labath added a comment. The change seems fine to me, and I don't really have anything to add to the things that were said already. Testing the completion of things that require a target/module/etc. will be a bit tricky, but that's something we should figure out anyway to have more targeted

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote: > > > > On Feb 7, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > and the command line in the log file doesn’t ever work for me' > > That's a bug. Can you show me an example where this breaks for you? I'd

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

> On Feb 7, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > and the command line in the log file doesn’t ever work for me' That's a bug. Can you show me an example where this breaks for you? I'd like to investigate this. -- adrian

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

Yes but debugging across several api calls is annoying, and the command line in the log file doesn’t ever work for me On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:07 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > jingham added a comment. > > If a dotest test fails, you go to the

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

jingham added a comment. If a dotest test fails, you go to the Failure-whatever.log, take the last line, add a -d to it, and run it. It suspends itself, then you attach to the Python instance with the debugger. https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

Also, failures that are easy to reproduce are easy to debug. When a test fails this way, you get a command line that can reproduce the problem that can be debugged directly without having to debug across the python boundary. I find that very helpful personally On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:48 PM

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

Same reason that people use perl for heavy text processing, R for scientific programming, python for rapid iteration. It’s what they’re built for. When something is built for a very focused specific problem domain, the problems in that domain can be expressed very concisely and naturally. In the

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

jingham requested changes to this revision. jingham added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed. You do care about the common match string. When the lldb driver handles completion, if the common match string is not null, we append that to the line at the cursor position,

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

zturner added a comment. On the issue of keeping the other test, I think when an SB API method is basically a pass-through to a private method, then having a test of the SB API method that verifies "did the correct native method get called" is useful if for no other reason than to verify the

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

davide added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1001293, @davide wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1001287, @jingham wrote: > > > The current auto-completer tests aren't interactive - they do exactly the > > same thing your command does, but from Python. It's fine if you

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

jingham added a comment. The current auto-completer tests aren't interactive - they do exactly the same thing your command does, but from Python. It's fine if you want to add tests but please don't remove the current tests since they directly test what the SB clients use. This will only

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

zturner added a comment. In the future, we could add options to the `autocomplete` subcommand that would allow specification of a target, and things like cursor position to maximize testability. In general though, I like the approach. It's not hard to imagine 50+ tests being written just for

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

davide added a comment. You can take a look at the `test/testcases/functionalities/completion/TestCompletion.py` for the python equivalent. I find the potential FileCheck'ed version much easier to read/write/understand. I'm possibly biased having worked many years on LLVM, hence I'm asking for

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

vsk added a comment. The general direction lgtm, I'd be happy if we could replace interactive autocomplete tests with this. https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

davide created this revision. davide added reviewers: aprantl, vsk, friss, labath, zturner, jingham, jasonmolenda. This is an experiment to improve out lldb testing capabilities and making them more similar to the one used in LLVM. Example: davide@Davidinos-Mac-Pro ~/w/l/b/bin> ./lldb-test