On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:42 AM Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote:
> I have held from the beginning that the only tests that should be written > using HandleCommand are those that explicitly test command behavior, and if > it is possible to write a test using the SB API you should always do it > that way for the very reasons you cite. Not everybody agreed with me at > first, so we ended up with a bunch of tests that do complex things using > HandleCommand where they really ought not to. I'm not sure it is worth the > time to go rewrite all those tests, but we shouldn't write any new tests > that way. > I would like to revive this thread, because there doesn't seem to be consensus that this is the way to go. I've suggested on a couple of reviews recently that people put new command api tests under a new top-level folder under tests, and so far the responses I've gotten have not indicated that people are willing to do this. Nobody chimed in on this thread with a disagreement, which indicates to me that we are ok with moving this forward. So I'm reviving this in hopes that we can come to agreement. With that in mind, my goal is: 1) Begin enforcing this on new CLs that go in. We need to maintain a consistent message and direction for the project, and if this is a "good idea", then it should be applied and enforced consistently. Command api tests should be the exception, not the norm. 2) Begin rejecting or reverting changes that go in without tests. I understand there are some situations where tests are difficult. Core dumps and unwinding come to mind. There are probably others. But this is the exception, and not the norm. Almost every change should go in with tests. 3) If a CL cannot be tested without a command api test due to limitations of the SB API, require new changes to go in *with a corresponding SB API change*. I know that people just want to get their stuff done, but I dont' feel is an excuse for having a subpar testing situation. For the record, I'm not singling anyone out. Everyone is guilty, including me. I'm offering to do my part, and I would like to be able to enforce this at the project level. As with #2, there are times when an SB API isn't appropriate or doesn't make sense. We can figure that out when we come to it. But I believe a large majority of these command api tests go in the way they do because there is no corresponding SB API *yet*. And I think the change should not go in without designing the appropriate SB API at the same time. Zach
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
