[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r257644 - Fix an issue where scripted commands would not actually print any of their output if an immediate output file was set in the result object via a Python file object

Wed Jan 13 17:39:26 PST 2016

From the buildbot log it’s quite hard to tell what could be going on

Is there any chance you guys could run the test by hand with the “-t -v” flags to the dotest.py driver and attach the output of the run?

That might help figure out where the issue lies

> On Jan 13, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Ying Chen <chying at google.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Enrico,
> 
> The new test has been failing on Ubuntu buildbot. But it's passing on some offline Ubuntu machines, I don't understand what caused the difference.
> Could you please help to take a look?
> 
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/10299 <http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake/builds/10299>
> 
> Thanks,
> Ying
> 
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Enrico Granata via lldb-commits <lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com <mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks!  btw would having the command write its output to a file instead of stdout solve the pexpect problme as well?
>> 
> 
> That’s possible - but I would need to play with it a little bit to convince myself that it really is a faithful reproduction of my original issue
> It’ll take me a little while to get to it - stay tuned.
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:22 AM Enrico Granata <egranata at apple.com <mailto:egranata at apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com <mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:25 AM Enrico Granata <egranata at apple.com <mailto:egranata at apple.com>> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 13, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com <mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM Enrico Granata via lldb-commits <lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +class CommandScriptImmediateOutputTestCase (PExpectTest):
>>>> Does the bug that you were trying to fix occur only when using the command_script.py file from the lldb command line?  If you load it from within lldb via an LLDB command, does the problem still occur?  If the problem you are fixing is not specific to the LLDB command line, I would prefer if you write this not as a pexpect test.
>>> 
>>> I would love to not touch pexpect :-) But in this case, I can’t see a way around it. I am trying to detect whether some text is “physically” printed to stdout. And pexpect seems the most obvious straightforward way to get that to happen. Note that, in this bug, the result object is filled in correctly even if nothing gets printed, so looking at the result won’t quite cut it - it really needs to detect output to stdout.
>>> You're calling result.SetImmediateOutputFile(sys.__stdout__).  Wouldn't it work to use a file on the file system here, and then you open that file and look at it after running the commands?  It wouldn't work in remote cases, but it already doesn't work on remote cases anyway (as you point out below)
>>>  
>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> +
>>>> +    mydir = TestBase.compute_mydir(__file__)
>>>> +
>>>> +    def setUp(self):
>>>> +        # Call super's setUp().
>>>> +        PExpectTest.setUp(self)
>>>> +
>>>> +    @skipIfRemote # test not remote-ready llvm.org/pr24813 <http://llvm.org/pr24813>
>>>> +    @expectedFlakeyFreeBSD("llvm.org/pr25172 <http://llvm.org/pr25172> fails rarely on the buildbot")
>>>> +    @expectedFlakeyLinux("llvm.org/pr25172 <http://llvm.org/pr25172>")
>>>> Are these necessary?  The windows one is necessary (but not if you change this to not being a pexpect test as I've requested above), but why are the other ones necessary?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Do we support remote pexpect? As for FreeBSD and Linux, they might not be necessary, but I’d rather much remove them (or let the relevant platform owners) remove them in a separate commit
>>> 
>>> No remote pexpect, so the @skipIfRemote probably needs to be there.  But I think everyone should be checking in tests enabled by default in the widest set of environments possible that you aren't completely sure are broken.  It should be up to the platform holders to disable broken tests, not to enable working tests.  Because it's much easier to notice a broken test going in than it is to notice a working test went in disabled (because who's going to think to test it out?).
>> 
>> 
>> This is a fair point. I’ll enable those platforms in a subsequent commit ASAP
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> - Enrico
>> 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> - Enrico
> 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-commits mailing list
> lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits>
> 
> 

Thanks,
- Enrico
📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20160113/9c4ed153/attachment-0001.html>