zturner added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16334#331420, @tberghammer wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16334#331368, @zturner wrote: > > > I don't know, I still disagree. If something in step-over breaks, I dont' > > want to dig through a list of 30 other tests that have nothing to do with > > the problem, only to find out 2 days later that the problem is actually in > > step over. The only reason this helps is because the test suite is > > insufficient as it is. But it doesn't need to be! > > > I agree but first we should fix the test coverage and then fix the individual > tests. Doing it in the opposite way will cause a significant drop in quality > (we will fix individual tests but not increase the coverage enough). > > > The real solution is for people to start thinking about tests more. I've > > hounded on this time and time again, but it seems most of the time tests > > only get added when I catch a CL go by with no tests and request them. > > Sometimes they don't even get added then. "Oh yea this is on my radar, > > I'll loop back around to it." <Months go by, no tests>. Hundreds of CLs > > have gone in over the past few months, and probably 10 tests have gone in. > > *That's* the problem. People should be spending as much time thinking > > about how to write tests as they are about how to write the thing they're > > implementing. Almost every CL can be tested. Everything, no matter how > > small, can be tested. If the SB tests are too heavyweight, that's what the > > unit tests are for. IF there's no SB API that does what you need to do to > > test it, add the SB API. "But I have to design the API first" is not an > > excuse. Design it then. > > > I think we need a different API for tests then the SB API which can be > changed more freely without have to worry about backward compatibility. When > adding a new feature I try to avoid adding an SB API until I know for sure > what data I have to expose because a wrong decision early on will carry > forward (how many deprecated SB API calls we have?). Do you have a concrete example of where you don't want to add an SB API, but a unit test isn't ideal? http://reviews.llvm.org/D16334 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
