I'm not sure I understand your testing strategy, in particular how it applies to the existing Lua and Python extensions. I am looking at the files in lldb/unittests/ScriptInterpreter/Lua&Python. Do you execute test from native Lua/Python environments or through C wrappers-only? You mentioned a bot - is that code in the main repository?
________________________________ From: Raphael Isemann via Phabricator <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 11:24:10 AM To: David Millar; anoro...@apple.com; fallk...@yahoo.com; kkle...@redhat.com; medismail.benn...@gmail.com; jo...@devlieghere.com; tedw...@quicinc.com; jmole...@apple.com; syaghm...@apple.com; jing...@apple.com; v...@apple.com; boris.ulasev...@gmail.com; lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org; h.imai....@nitech.jp; bruce.mitche...@gmail.com; david.spick...@linaro.org; quic_soura...@quicinc.com; djordje.todoro...@syrmia.com; serhiy.re...@gmail.com; liburd1...@outlook.com Cc: mgo...@gentoo.org Subject: [PATCH] D111409: proposed support for Java interface to Scripting Bridge teemperor added a comment. No problem, first time using Phabricator is always a bit confusing. You can just do a `git diff -U999999 > ~/java-patch.diff`, click the "Update Diff" button on the top right of this website and then select *just* this diff file that contains your changes. Phabricator will render the diff properly for you (-> it will hide all the diff context by default). There is need to attach a separate diff file or anything else (users can just download the diff you uploaded). Regarding the tests: We would essentially just need some basic test that exercises the new API a bit so that we know this works. The test code itself will be straightforward, but we would need a nice way to (automatically) find the system JRE and then set it up to be able to run the test code. In D111409#3051140 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409#3051140>, @d-millar wrote: > Am obviously brand new to your process and a bit of an old dog when it comes > to learning new tricks. Would you prefer I make a new submission with the > -U999999 diff? Also, am more than willing to help with the Java tests if > that would be useful. > > ________________________________ > > From: Raphael Isemann via Phabricator <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> > Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 10:46:50 AM > To: David Millar; anoro...@apple.com; fallk...@yahoo.com; kkle...@redhat.com; > medismail.benn...@gmail.com; jo...@devlieghere.com; tedw...@quicinc.com; > jmole...@apple.com; syaghm...@apple.com; jing...@apple.com; v...@apple.com; > boris.ulasev...@gmail.com; lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org; h.imai....@nitech.jp; > bruce.mitche...@gmail.com; david.spick...@linaro.org; > quic_soura...@quicinc.com; djordje.todoro...@syrmia.com; > serhiy.re...@gmail.com; liburd1...@outlook.com > Cc: mgo...@gentoo.org > Subject: [PATCH] D111409 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409>: proposed support > for Java interface to Scripting Bridge > > teemperor added a comment. > > In D111409#3051110 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409#3051110> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409#3051110, @d-millar wrote: > >> Apologies for the inclusion of that last file "patch" - that is the "git >> diff -U9999999" result, should that be useful. > > You can just upload that diff file and Phabricator will display it properly. > There is no need to include the raw diff as part of the patch itself (it just > makes this diff 100 times larger than it needs to be) :) > > Anyway, I think this seems like a reasonable thing to have. We have to figure > out though how we can properly set up some Java tests for this and it would > be nice if we also find a bot that could actually run the tests for us. > > > > > Comment at: lldb/bindings/java/CMakeLists.txt:3 > + * IP: Apache License 2.0 with LLVM Exceptions > + */ > > +add_custom_command( > -------------------- > > I don't think CMake accepts this as a comment and I think we anyway don't put > license headers in CMake scripts. > > > > > Comment at: lldb/source/API/CMakeLists.txt:84 > > SBTrace.cpp > > + SBTraceOptions.cpp > > SBType.cpp > > ---------------- > > I think this is some conflict with one of the SBTrace patches. > > Repository: > > rLLDB LLDB > > CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409/new/ > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409 Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
