rupprecht marked an inline comment as done.
rupprecht added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/terminal/TestEditline.py:37-38
+
+ # Run help for different commands for escape variants to make sure each
+ # one matches uniquely (the buffer isn't cleared in between matches).
+ cases = [
----------------
labath wrote:
> The buffer isn't exactly "cleared", but each "expect" command should only
> match from the end of the previous match, so repeating the same command
> should not be a problem. What the other (few) pexpect tests do is put an
> `self.expect_prompt()` to ensure all output from the previous command is
> ignored, and lldb is ready to receive a new command. You could do that too.
> In fact, you could probably use the helper "expect" command which does all of
> this for you:
> `self.expect("el ommand{L}c{L}{L}h{R}p".format(...), substrs=["Syntax:
> command"])`
The expect helper is nice, thanks!
> but each "expect" command should only match from the end of the previous match
I am not able to reproduce that. If I change the expect to the static string
`"Syntax: print"` (not `% cmd`), then the second case (which types `"help
step"`) passes. Which implies it's checking the entire buffer.
The third case (`"help exit"`) fails because the buffer does not contain the
`print` help text anymore. But that means this behavior is dependent on the
relation between help text length and buffer size. For now, I'll leave this as
separate help commands.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70137/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70137
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
