davide added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048#1001287, @jingham wrote:
> The current auto-completer tests aren't interactive - they do exactly the > same thing your command does, but from Python. It's fine if you want to add > tests but please don't remove the current tests since they directly test what > the SB clients use. This is a drop-in replacement for the other test. I'm not sure why we need to keep the other test, but I'll let others comment. > This will only allow you to test some of the auto-completers, for instance > you don't have symbols so you can't test the symbol completer. But since the > symbol commands in this lldb-test have some way to feed symbols in maybe you > can crib that. I think you'll also need to make a target and some other bits > as well. As you start adding these you might find that this becomes onerous, > but that will be an interesting experiment. I voluntarily left that as as follow up. > You didn't get the HandleCompletion API quite right. That's my fault this > isn't well documented. The way it works is that if all the potential matches > share a common substring, then the 0th element of the result contains the > common substring. If there is no common substring, then the possible matches > will be stored from element 1 on in the Results list. If you want examples > take a closer look at how the Python test does it. The API is a little confusing. There are multiple issues IMHO: 1. We shouldn't really discriminate based on the position of the elements of the list, as it's easy to get them wrong, as I did. Instead, the API might return a, let's say, pair, where the first element is the common substring and the second element is a list containing etc.. 2. We pass strings for the second and third argument (cursor/end), when we should just pass offsets 3. The return value is N and the list contains N +1 values. This is very error prone. So, I think this might call for a better API? Also, please note that I read the API and was aware of the oddities, just decided to defer the discussion to another day. I think my usage of the API is correct, as I don't necessarily care about the common substring, if any. https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
