[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D16741: Make many of the skip decorators use common code

Todd Fiala via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Feb 2 08:02:19 PST 2016

> We've already had a case when a test wasn't running for several months
before I noticed (see r257901) that it had a bad decorator applied at the
class level.

I've been thinking about this in the background lately.  Several times over
the last couple years I found decorator logic that had errors in them
(literally, the code was throwing an exception within the decorator logic,
such as using a module that isn't imported), but this will go by silently
unless some work is put into logging errors there.

If we haven't already, we should probably have some kind of exception
wrapper around our decorators that catches non-unittest-related (i.e.
unexpected) exceptions and somehow makes them more prevalent - maybe a hard
error on the test or an abort or something.

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> zturner added inline comments.
> ================
> Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbtest.py:1102
> @@ -1164,2 +1101,3 @@
> +                return func(*args, **kwargs)
>          return wrapper
> ----------------
> labath wrote:
> > This return statement is the root cause of the problem. If `func` is a
> class, you will replace it by a strange function-like object.
> This return statement is newly added anyway (and looks to be a mistake).
> Does this mean if I remove the return statement, the all of the skip
> decorators will be able to be used at class level?
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D16741

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20160202/34455331/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the lldb-commits mailing list