It would also be nice if the summary statistics were printed after the list of failing / errored tests. The reason is that it involves a fixed number of lines to print the table, but the list of failures and errors is a variable number of lines which could potentially be very long and push the statistics off the screen.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:08 AM Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > Ahh I read further and see this was already mentioned by Pavel. > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:06 AM Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:20 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:44 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and the classname could be dropped (there's only one class per file >>>>>> anyway, so the classname is just wasted space) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Part of the reason I included that is I've hit several times where >>>>> copy and paste errors lead to the same class name, method name or even >>>>> file >>>>> name being used for a test. I think, though, that most of those are >>>>> addressed by having the path (relative is fine) to the python test file. >>>>> I >>>>> think we can probably get by with classname.methodname (relative test >>>>> path). (From your other email, I think you nuke the classname and keep >>>>> the >>>>> module name, but I'd probably do the reverse, keeping the class name and >>>>> getting rid of the module name since it can be derived from the filename). >>>>> >>>> I don't think the filename can be the same anymore, as things will >>>> break if two filenames are the same. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe, but that wasn't my experience as of fairly recently. When >>> tracking failures sometime within the last month, I tracked something down >>> in a downstream branch with two same-named files that (with the legacy >>> output) made it hard to track down what was actually failing given the >>> limited info of the legacy test summary output. Maybe that has changed >>> since then, but I'm not aware of anything that would have prohibited that. >>> >> Well I only said "things" will break, not everything will break. Most >> likely you just didn't notice the problem or it didn't present itself in >> your scenario. There are definitely bugs surrounding multiple files with >> the same name, because of some places where we use a dictionary keyed on >> filename. >> >> >>>
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
