I was thinking of a simple test like "call get on an existing file and make sure it returns something reasonable" and "call get on a non-existing file and make sure it returns null". This is a very thin wrapper over over the llvm code, so I don't insist on it though...
On 24 February 2017 at 15:18, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > I left out unit tests since we'd essentially be duplicating the unit tests > of MemoryBuffer, and because it involves the file system (also this is > temporary code until DataBuffer stuff goes away). Lmk if you disagree though > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:53 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator > <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> labath added a comment. >> >> I am not sure if this is a voting situation, but I agree with what Zachary >> said above. >> >> Since we're already speaking about tests, it looks like the new >> DataBufferLLVM class could use a unit test or two, just so we get in the >> habit of writing those. >> >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D30054 >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits