labath accepted this revision.
labath added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/functionalities/memory-region/TestMemoryRegion.py:44-52
+ # Test that when the address fails to parse, we do not carry on
+ # and ask lldb-server for an invalid address
+ interp.HandleCommand("memory region not_an_address", result)
+ self.assertFalse(result.Succeeded())
+ self.assertRegexpMatches(result.GetError(),
+ "error: invalid address argument \"not_an_address\"")
+ # This would be found if we carried on despite the error
----------------
DavidSpickett wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > DavidSpickett wrote:
> > > labath wrote:
> > > > If you're goal is to ensure that lldb-server is really not queried,
> > > > then this would require a different kind of a test.
> > > >
> > > > But if (as I suspect), you just want to ensure the error message makes
> > > > sense, then it would be better to just match the full text of the error
> > > > message, and drop all references to lldb-server.
> > > It's both, that you get an error that makes sense but also that we don't
> > > then carry on regardless. I suppose there's no guarantee that that second
> > > error is caused by sending a qMemoryRegion packet so it isn't very exact.
> > >
> > > I'll add a second test that checks that the specific packets are not sent
> > > after the first error.
> > >
> > Right, but this won't check that the second message is not displayed, will
> > it? I thought we'd change this to an exact string match instead of a regex.
> > It won't be consistent with the surrounding code, but it could be argued
> > that the surrounding code should also be changed to use exact matches in
> > order to ensure the error messages are really reasonable...
> >
> > I'm not convinced of the value of the other test, but I won't stop you from
> > adding it. :)
> Right, I misunderstood. (also not sure my first version did what I thought it
> did either)
>
> Changed to match the full error message, that should cover it. If you did
> carry on you'd get some other message that won't match, from lldb-server or
> otherwise.
Awesome. In fact, now that we have the full error message, we can see that's
still kinda redundant. But that's for another patch...
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87694/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87694
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
