dblaikie added a comment. In D100191#2689543 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191#2689543>, @mgorny wrote:
> In D100191#2689489 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191#2689489>, @labath wrote: > >> We should also start thinking about tests. I suppose the smallest piece of >> functionality that could be usefully tested (with a lldb-server test) is >> debugging a process that forks, stopping after the fork, and detaching from >> the child. Shall we try making that work first? > > I'm really too exhausted on this to write more tests. A few commits later I'm > adding a full set of basic tests for various fork scenarios. I think the > patches are simple enough to justify limiting ourselves to integration > testing for the whole thing, at least for the time being. Generally LLVM patches must have accompanying tests for any code they're adding - if it's not possible to test the patch because it's too isolated/lacks related infrastructure then it's possible the patch is too small. But we try pretty hard to isolate patches and find ways to test work incrementally as it's added. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
