tberghammer added a subscriber: tberghammer. tberghammer added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16334#331318, @zturner wrote:
> FWIW, I think Adrian's original point is that testing the behavior of signed > types shouldn't depend on step over functionality. It's good practice in > general to make tests depend on as little debugger functionality as possibly > to reliably test the thing you want to test. Because the more functionality > you depend on, the more fickle your test becomes. Why does a bug in one > platform's implementation of step over break a test about whether signed ints > work? > > So, I'm all for removing this test's dependency on step-over > (TestUnsignedTypes doesn't use step over, for example) if there's a way to > reliably test the functionality without step over. > > But I still think it's important to know what CL broke all these tests. In general I agree with your concept of trying to make the tests standalone without depending on a lot of other functionality, but I see a major issue. Currently our test coverage is low even for the basic functionality (backtrace, frame variables, stepping, etc.) and a lot of failure in these areas are detected by completely unrelated tests because they are depending on them and as a result doing some sort of stress testing (each test try a slightly different situation). If we make all of our tests standalone without increasing the number of tests by a lot (I guess 2-5x needed) I expect that we will lose a lot of coverage. I am more happy if an unrelated test fails because we introduced a bug then ending up with a lot more undetected bugs. http://reviews.llvm.org/D16334 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
