This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL283238: Improvements to testing blacklist (authored by
fjricci).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988?vs=73363&id=73525#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988
F
tfiala added a comment.
I also just added a test case to validate we get a non-None answer to test
instance self.id() calls. We use it in several places, so might as well make
that explicit.
That went in as r283156.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988
_
tfiala accepted this revision.
tfiala added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Much better. I see you found test.id(), which gets as the
module.class.test_method setup. That will be unique.
Thanks! LGTM.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988
___
fjricci updated this revision to Diff 73363.
fjricci added a comment.
Fix typo
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/configuration.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest_args.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tes
fjricci updated this revision to Diff 73362.
fjricci added a comment.
Match against filename + test case + method name
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/configuration.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest_args
fjricci added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988#559775, @tfiala wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988#559314, @fjricci wrote:
>
> > For an example of something that couldn't be disabled with the original
> > implementation, consider a test like:
> >
> > `CreateDuringStepTestCas
tfiala added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988#559314, @fjricci wrote:
> For an example of something that couldn't be disabled with the original
> implementation, consider a test like:
>
> `CreateDuringStepTestCase.test_step_inst`
>
> Disabling by method name (`test_step_inst`) would
fjricci added a comment.
For an example of something that couldn't be disabled with the original
implementation, consider a test like:
`CreateDuringStepTestCase.test_step_inst`
Disabling by method name (`test_step_inst`) would also disable
`CreateDuringInstructionStepTestCase.test_step_inst`.
fjricci added a comment.
The problem with the existing code is that file names are required to be
unique, but method names are not. So if the user wants to disable an individual
test method with a non-unique name, there is no way to do so. This patch still
allows the tests to be disabled by fil
tfiala added a comment.
Hey @fjricci ,
What is the motivation for this change? It looks like the existing code works
based on file names, which are required to be unique in the system. It looks
like you're attempting to move it over to a classname.method scheme. Is that
right? If so, class
fjricci added a comment.
Since this is strictly an improvement and simplification, and won't break
anyone's workflow because it's still a new feature, I'll plan on merging this
tomorrow unless I hear any objections.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988
___
fjricci created this revision.
fjricci added reviewers: zturner, labath, tfiala, jingham.
fjricci added subscribers: sas, lldb-commits.
This patch is necessary because individual test cases are not required
to have unique names. Therefore, test cases must now
be specified explicitly in the form ..
12 matches
Mail list logo
