Oh haha okay. :-)
Thanks for explaining, Ying!
-Todd
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Ying Chen wrote:
> Yes, the output of dotest.py goes through LitTestCommand parse.
> The parser is matching for "XPASS", but dotest output is using "UNEXPECTED
> SUCCESS". :)
>
> Thanks,
> Ying
>
> On Tue,
Yes, the output of dotest.py goes through LitTestCommand parse.
The parser is matching for "XPASS", but dotest output is using "UNEXPECTED
SUCCESS". :)
Thanks,
Ying
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Todd Fiala wrote:
> Hi Ying,
>
> Our dotest.py lldb test results go through that lit test parser
Hi Ying,
Our dotest.py lldb test results go through that lit test parser system? I
see XPASS happen frequently (and in fact is my whole reason for starting a
thread on getting rid of flakey tests, or making them run enough times so
that their output can be a useful signal rather than useless). A
Hi Zachary,
The big unknown here is how to make the buildbots understand unit test
> failures and trigger a failure when ninja check-lldb-unit fails.
>
There're two conditions buildbot will identity a test step as failure.
One is that the command has non-zero return code.
The other is that there'
Right now there are two ninja check targets: "ninja check-lldb", which
runs dotest and all of the SB API tests, and "ninja check-lldb-unit" which
runs the gtest unit test suite.
I would like to make unit tests run by default. This entails two things,
which could be done independently of each oth
