On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote:
> Not sure I follow. Are you trying to test the execution engine itself > (dotest.py, lldbtest.py, etc) > This. Test the lldb highly-specialized test runner internals. > or are you trying to have another alternative to running individual tests? > Not this. > The > > if __name__ == "__main__": > unittest.main() stuff > > was deleted deleted from all tests a few months ago as part of the package > re-organization, and I thought I had general consensus at the time that > that was ok to do. > > Totally fine for lldb test suite tests, of which almost everything is. > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:13 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It just requires running the test file as a python script. >> >> The runner is fired off like this: >> >> if __name__ == "__main__": >> unittest.main() >> >> which is typically added to the bottom of all test files so you can call >> it directly. >> >> -Todd >> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Unittest. >>> >>> Comes with Python. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Todd >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -Todd >> > -- -Todd
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
