zturner added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14406#283034, @labath wrote:
> (The upstream unittest does not seem to have the bugnumber feature. I am
> assuming the intention here is to make this upstream compatible, in hope of
> moving over there at some point.)
I can leave the
zturner added inline comments.
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbtest.py:605
@@ -611,2 +604,3 @@
if expected_fn(self):
-raise case._UnexpectedSuccess(sys.exc_info(), bugnumber)
+xfail_func = unittest2.expectedFailure(func)
tberghammer added a comment.
If the purpose of the change to get closer to upstream then I am fine with
removing the bug number here. In general I don't feel it is a that high risk
change, but I might miss something.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14406
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
From what I can tell, it should just work. I assume you've done the obvious
checks, like deliberately failing a test and seeing it registers as failed,
etc. I think we should just commit it,
labath added a comment.
(The upstream unittest does not seem to have the bugnumber feature. I am
assuming the intention here is to make this upstream compatible, in hope of
moving over there at some point.)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14406
___
tberghammer added inline comments.
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbtest.py:605
@@ -611,2 +604,3 @@
if expected_fn(self):
-raise case._UnexpectedSuccess(sys.exc_info(), bugnumber)
+xfail_func =