[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D14406: Don't depend on implementation details of unittest2 for our custom decorators

Zachary Turner via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Nov 6 10:17:16 PST 2015

zturner added inline comments.

Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbtest.py:605
@@ -611,2 +604,3 @@
             if expected_fn(self):
-                raise case._UnexpectedSuccess(sys.exc_info(), bugnumber)
+                xfail_func = unittest2.expectedFailure(func)
+                xfail_func(*args, **kwargs)
tberghammer wrote:
> You are swallowing the bug number here
> Based on the implementation of unittest2.expectedFailure I think you should write the following to preserve it (I haven't tested it):
> ```
> unittest2.expectedFailure(bugnumber)(func)
> ```
Actually I think it already has the same sematnics.  When I use your version it doesn't work.  I think it works with my version because of the `if six.callable(bugnumber)` check on line 610 (which is cut out in the context here, but you can check it).

I'll put it in like this and see what happens


More information about the lldb-commits mailing list