[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D16334: Fix TestSignedTypes.py by removing a bogus step-over

[Jim Ingham via lldb-commits]

I sort of agree with this and sort of don't.  Formally, I agree with the notion of limited focused tests.  But in practice it is often the noise in tests that catches bugs that we don't yet have tests for.  And especially when the "noise" is doing things like step over that 100% should work in any functional debugger...  So I am also a little leery of cleaning up the tests too much so that they only test the things we've thought to test and miss other things.

Jim

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> 
> zturner added a comment.
> 
> FWIW, I think Adrian's original point is that testing the behavior of signed types shouldn't depend on step over functionality.  It's good practice in general to make tests depend on as little debugger functionality as possibly to reliably test the thing you want to test.  Because the more functionality you depend on, the more fickle your test becomes.  Why does a bug in one platform's implementation of step over break a test about whether signed ints work?
> 
> So, I'm all for removing this test's dependency on step-over (TestUnsignedTypes doesn't use step over, for example) if there's a way to reliably test the functionality without step over.
> 
> But I still think it's important to know what CL broke all these tests.
> 
> 
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D16334
> 
> 
>