Seems reasonable.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> I think the correct fix is to just not throw the exception, and do it the
> right way. unittest doesn't even use an exception for that anymore, but
> has some kind of method to tag the test as xfail or skip, whereas our
I think the correct fix is to just not throw the exception, and do it the
right way. unittest doesn't even use an exception for that anymore, but
has some kind of method to tag the test as xfail or skip, whereas our
unittest2 uses an exceptionf or the same purpose.
Basically, we need to look at t
Okay. Sounds like something we can work around one way or another, either
by introducing the correct exception name for unittest, or introducing our
own if we need to do so.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> If I remember correctly it was in the way we had implemented on
If I remember correctly it was in the way we had implemented one of the
expected fail decorators. We were manually throwing some kind of exception
to indicate an xfail or a skip, and that exception doesn't exist in the
upstream unittest. Basically, we were relying on an implementation detail
of u
I think we can do this, and I'd like us to do this unless it's proven to
break something we're not aware of. I think you did some research on this
after we discussed last, but something (maybe in the decorators) didn't
just work. Was that right?
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Zachary Turner
Also at some point I will probably want to kill unittest2 and move to the
upstream unittest. AFAICT we only use unittest2 because it works on 2.6
and unittest doesn't. But now that we're ok with saying 2.6 is
unsupported, we can in theory go to the upstream unittest.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:1
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Zachary Turner 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 individua
Not sure I follow. Are you trying to test the execution engine itself
(dotest.py, lldbtest.py, etc) or are you trying to have another alternative
to running individual tests? The
if __name__ == "__main__":
unittest.main() stuff
was deleted deleted from all tests a few months ago as part of
The tests end up looking substantially similar to our lldb test suite
tests, as they were based on unittest2, which is/was a relative of unittest
that now lives in Python. The docs for unittest in python 2.x have
generally been accurate for the unittest2 lib we use. At least, for the
areas I use.
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 wrote:
> Unitt
Unittest.
Comes with Python.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> Presumably those tests use an entirely different, hand-rolled test running
> infrastructure?
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:52 AM Todd Fiala wrote:
>
>> One thing I want to make sure we can do is have a sane
Presumably those tests use an entirely different, hand-rolled test running
infrastructure?
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:52 AM Todd Fiala 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
>
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 to
I like it.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Zachary Turner 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 wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with the idea.
>>
>> FWIW the test events model will likely shift a bit, as it is cu
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 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 filt
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.p
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",
17 matches
Mail list logo
