I'd be okay with that. The unittest2 stuff looks like it was a vestige of being incorporated before unittest2 was stock (unitest) on Python 2.[6,7]?. Everyone should have a unitest included that is effectively what we use as unittest2.
-Todd On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I plan to put this in today. Greg, should I just go ahead and delete all > the unittest2 stuff entirely? TBH I'm all for anything that reduces the > complexity of the test suite. It's got a couple hundred options that > nobody uses, seems like we should start whittling away at stuff that > doesn't get any use. > > If you prefer I leave it in that's less work for me since I have that > patch ready to go, but TBH I'd rather remove it if that's ok. > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:50 AM Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > >> You can get pretty much the same effect though by just running dotest and >> passing it the folder that the .py file is in. Then it only runs tests in >> that folder. You can specify the filename too if you want to limit it to >> one name. Sure, it's a few keystrokes less to just type >> TestMultithreaded.py or something, but given the extra complexity and the >> fact that it's running a totally different codepath, I wonder if the >> maintenance burden is worth it (I'm guessing no, since apparently it >> doesn't work well enough right now for anyone to use it) >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:47 AM Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> I believe it would import lldb correctly. I don't tend to run the tests >>> individually, but if it did work, I would use it more. >>> >>> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < >>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > Todd, Greg, can you guys confirm this is true? The import lldb would >>> succeed if someone had their PYTHONPATH set up just right, but if really >>> none of us care about it, I'm with Tamas in that I'd rather remove it. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:55 AM Tamas Berghammer < >>> tbergham...@google.com> wrote: >>> > Hi Zach, >>> > >>> > I think nobody is using the "if __name__ == '__main__'" block as >>> executing a test file directly isn't working at the moment (the "import >>> lldb" command fails). If you plan to change all test file then I would >>> prefer to remove the reference to unittest2 from them for simplicity if >>> nobody have an objection against it. >>> > >>> > Tamas >>> > >>> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:57 PM Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < >>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> > TL;DR - Nobody has to do anything, this is just a heads up that a 400+ >>> file CL is coming. >>> > >>> > IANAL, but I've been told by one that I need to move all third party >>> code used by LLDB to lldb/third_party. Currently there is only one thing >>> there: the Python `six` module used for creating code that is portable >>> across Python 2 and Python 3. >>> > >>> > The only other 2 instances that I'm aware of are pexpect and >>> unittest2, which are under lldb/test. I've got some patches locally which >>> move pexpect and unittest2 to lldb/third_party. I'll hold off on checking >>> them in for a bit to give people a chance to see this message first, >>> because otherwise you might be surprised when you see a CL with 400 files >>> being checked in. >>> > >>> > Nobody will have to do anything after this CL goes in, and everything >>> should continue to work exactly as it currently does. >>> > >>> > The main reason for the churn is that pretty much every single test in >>> LLDB does something like this: >>> > >>> > import unittest2 >>> > >>> > ... >>> > >>> > if __name__ == '__main__': >>> > import atexit >>> > lldb.SBDebugger.Initialize() >>> > atexit.register(lambda: lldb.SBDebugger.Terminate()) >>> > unittest2.main() >>> > >>> > This worked when unittest2 was a subfolder of test, but not when it's >>> somewhere else. Since LLDB's python code is not organized into a standard >>> python package and we treat the scripts like dotest etc as standalone >>> scripts, the way I've made this work is by introducing a module called >>> lldb_shared under test which, when you import it, fixes up sys.path to >>> correctly add all the right locations under lldb/third_party. >>> > >>> > So, every single test now needs a line at the top to import >>> lldb_shared. >>> > >>> > TBH I don't even know if we need this unittest2 stuff anymore (does >>> anyone even use it?) but even if the answer is no, then that still means >>> changing every file to delete the import statement and the if __name__ == >>> '__main__': block. >>> > >>> > If there are no major concerns I plan to check this in by the end of >>> the day, or tomorrow. >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > lldb-dev mailing list >>> > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > lldb-dev mailing list >>> > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > -- -Todd
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
