labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42836#996288, @aprantl wrote:
> That looks great, to make sure I understand this correctly, is the following > accurate? > > If we apply this on top of https://reviews.llvm.org/D42763, and we have > > tests/my/testA.py: > class TestA(Base): > def setUp(self): > ... > def testAone(self): > ... > def testAtwo(self): > ... > > > and we are testing two variants, "dwo", and "dwarf". > > dotest.py will instantiate 4 objects: > > Aone_dwo = new TestA { debug_info="dwo" } > Aone_dwarf = new TestA { debug_info="dwo" } > Atwo_dwo = new TestA { debug_info="dwo" } > Atwo_dwarf = new TestA { debug_info="dwarf" } > > > and schedule > > Aone_dwo.setUp() > Aone_dwarf.setUp() > Atwo_dwo.setUp() > Atwo_dwarf.setUp() > > > and then > > Aone_dwo.testAone() > Aone_dwarf.testAone() > Atwo_dwo.testAtwo() > Atwo_dwarf.testAtwo() > > > Is this accurate, or is there something missing to make it behave this way? Not completely accurate. The steps are the correct, but the order is different. It will be something like for test in ["testAdwarf", "testAdwo", "testBdwarf", "testBdwo"]: A = new TestA(test) # initializes A._testMethodName A.setUp() # can access debug info variant through A._testMethodName (a.k.a A.testMethodName) getattr(A, test)() A.tearDown() I don't know whether this distinction matters for you right now (?) https://reviews.llvm.org/D42836 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
