[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D43048: [lldb-test/WIP] Allow a way to test autocompletion

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

Same reason that people use perl for heavy text processing, R for
scientific programming, python for rapid iteration. It’s what they’re built
for. When something is built for a very focused specific problem domain,
the problems in that domain can be expressed very concisely and naturally.

In the current python test there’s 4-6 lines of Python boilerplate for
every 2-3 lines of test “meat”.  And it’s all code, making matters even
worse.

A FileCheck test will have approximately 0 lines of text that aren’t part
of the “meat” of the test, and on top of that it can poke at every low
level detail of a system, not just those that are blessed with an api

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:29 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> jingham requested changes to this revision.
> jingham added a comment.
> This revision now requires changes to proceed.
>
> You do care about the common match string.  When the lldb driver handles
> completion, if the common match string is not null, we append that to the
> line at the cursor position, then present the matches if there is more than
> one.  So the common match string also has to be tested.
>
> The ability to page the completion requests in the API would be useful for
> instance in symbol completion where you can get lots of matches, but if you
> only plan to display the first page you'd rather not pay the cost to go
> find them all.  I put that in the SB API's because I didn't want to have to
> add another one when I got around to implementing this.  When I get around
> to this I'll fix the docs...  But you could remove that from the lldb
> private version if you're so motivated.  I'll still remember I intended to
> extend it this way, even if nobody else will see that.
>
> We can't return a std::pair across the SB API's, but we could make the
> common match be another parameter.  There was some reason this seemed
> logical to me at the time, but I must admit I can't remember why now.  It
> is in practice easy to use, however.  You append element 0 to the cursor
> position, then print the rest of the completions if num_matches is > 1.
> Again, feel free to switch the lldb_private API if it bugs you.
>
> An additional test in the Python testsuite is:
>
>   def test_target_create_dash_co(self):
>       """Test that 'target create --co' completes to 'target variable
> --core '."""
>       self.complete_from_to('target create --co', 'target create --core ')
>
> So I still don't see why the file check method is preferable.  But to each
> his own, I guess.
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20180208/81b1e5ba/attachment.html>