I thought about something like that too. Let me try to get all these other
patches landed first then I'll think about what to do.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:25 AM Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote:
> Aha, I see that now. What do you think about creating a test-only module
> that both unit tests can depend on? The llvm folder-globbing means we would
> have to put it in a subfolder (unittests/Utility/lib ?), which makes is
> somewhat annoying, but I still think that's better than having the test
> code in the main module.
>
> On 20 March 2017 at 13:04, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote:
>
> The reason was because two different tests from two different unittest
> executables need it, but we have no good way to share code across unittests
> like this. Open to suggestions though
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 4:02 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator <
> revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> labath added inline comments.
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Utility/TildeExpressionResolver.h:62
> +
> +class MockTildeExpressionResolver : public TildeExpressionResolver {
> + llvm::StringRef CurrentUser;
> ----------------
> I find it very strange to see the Mock object in a regular header file
> (and I also don't see a reason why we would need that). Could we get rid of
> this? (perhaps by declaring it in a test-only header file if necessary)
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D31129
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
