Presumably those tests use an entirely different, hand-rolled test running infrastructure?
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:52 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > One thing I want to make sure we can do is have a sane way of storing and > running tests that test the test execution engine. Those are tests that > should not run as part of an "lldb test run". These are tests that > maintainers of the test system run to make sure we're not breaking stuff > when we touch the test system. > > I would be writing more of those if I had a semi-sane way of doing it. > (Part of the reason I broke out the python-based timeout logic the way I > did, before the major packaging changes, was so I had an obvious spot to > add tests for the process runner logic). > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I like it. >> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Yea wasn't planning on doing this today, just throwing the idea out >>> there. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:35 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm fine with the idea. >>>> >>>> FWIW the test events model will likely shift a bit, as it is currently >>>> a single sink, whereas I am likely to turn it into a test event filter >>>> chain shortly here. Formatters still make sense as they'll be the things >>>> at the end of the chain. >>>> >>>> Minor detail, result_formatter.py should be results_formatter.py - they >>>> are ResultsFormatter instances (plural on Results since it transforms a >>>> series of results into coherent reported output). I'll rename that at some >>>> point in the near future, but if you shift a number of things around, you >>>> can do that. >>>> >>>> I'm just about done with the multi-pass running. I expect to get an >>>> opt-in version of that running end of day today or worst case on Sunday. >>>> It would be awesome if you can hold off on any significant change like that >>>> until this little bit is done as I'm sure we'll collide, particularly since >>>> this hits dosep.py pretty significantly. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> -Todd >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev < >>>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. A couple of tiny remarks: >>>>> - when you do the move, you might as well rename dotest into something >>>>> else, just to avoid the "which dotest should I run" type of >>>>> questions... >>>>> - there is nothing that makes it obvious that "engine" is actually a >>>>> "test running engine", as it sits in a sibling folder. OTOH, >>>>> "test_engine" might be too verbose, and messes up tab completion, so >>>>> that might not be a good idea either... >>>>> >>>>> pl >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10 December 2015 at 23:30, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev >>>>> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>> > Currently our folder structure looks like this: >>>>> > >>>>> > lldbsuite >>>>> > |-- test >>>>> > |-- dotest.py >>>>> > |-- dosep.py >>>>> > |-- lldbtest.py >>>>> > |-- ... >>>>> > |-- functionalities >>>>> > |-- lang >>>>> > |-- expression_command >>>>> > |-- ... >>>>> > etc >>>>> > >>>>> > I've been thinking about organizing it like this instead: >>>>> > >>>>> > lldbsuite >>>>> > |-- test >>>>> > |-- functionalities >>>>> > |-- lang >>>>> > |-- expression_command >>>>> > |-- ... >>>>> > |-- engine >>>>> > |-- dotest.py >>>>> > |-- dosep.py >>>>> > |-- lldbtest.py >>>>> > |-- ... >>>>> > >>>>> > Anybody have any thoughts on this? Good idea or bad idea? The main >>>>> reason >>>>> > I want to do this is because as we start breaking up some of the >>>>> code, it >>>>> > makes sense to start having some subpackages under the `engine` >>>>> folder (or >>>>> > the `test` folder in our current world). For example, Todd and I >>>>> have >>>>> > discussed the idea of putting formatter related stuff under a >>>>> `formatters` >>>>> > subpackage. In the current world, there's no way to differentiate >>>>> between >>>>> > folders which contain tests and folders which contain test >>>>> infrastructure, >>>>> > so when we walk the directory tree looking for tests we end up >>>>> walking a >>>>> > bunch of directories that are used for test infrastructure code and >>>>> not >>>>> > actual tests. So I like the logical separation this provides -- >>>>> having the >>>>> > tests themselves all under a single subpackage. >>>>> > >>>>> > Thoughts? >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > 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 >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -Todd >> > > > > -- > -Todd >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
