zturner added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16334#331338, @jingham wrote:
> I sort of agree with this and sort of don't. Formally, I agree with the > notion of limited focused tests. But in practice it is often the noise in > tests that catches bugs that we don't yet have tests for. And especially > when the "noise" is doing things like step over that 100% should work in any > functional debugger... So I am also a little leery of cleaning up the tests > too much so that they only test the things we've thought to test and miss > other things. > > Jim I think we should solve that by adding more tests though. I mean I don't want to do a 1 step forward, 2 steps back kind of thing. If someone knows of an area where we're missing coverage, then stop what you're doing and go add the coverage. If it's the type of thing where we don't know we're missing coverage and we're just hoping an unrelated test catches it someday, I don't agree with that. Just because we know we have a problem doesn't mean we should solve it the wrong way, because then we can never possibly reach the desired end state since we're actively moving farther away from it. http://reviews.llvm.org/D16334 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
