[llvm-dev] Test Error Paths for Expected & ErrorOr
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jul 27 07:46:45 PDT 2017
I /kind/ of like the idea - but it almost feels like this would be a tool
for finding out that test coverage is insufficient, then adding tests that
actually exercise the bad input, etc (this should be equally discoverable
by code coverage, probably? Maybe not if multiple error paths all collapse
together, maybe... )
For instance, with your example, especially once there's an identified bug
that helps motivate, would it not be better to add a test that does pass a
fileName input that fails GlobPattern::create?
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:10 AM Stefan Gränitz via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello, this is a call for feedback: opinions, improvements, testers..
> I use the support classes Expected<T> and ErrorOr<T> quite often
> recently and I like the concept a lot! Thanks Lang btw!
> However, from time to time I found issues in the execution paths of my
> error cases and got annoyed by their naturally low test coverage.
> So I started sketching a test that runs all error paths for a given
> piece of code to detect these issues. I just pushed it to GitHub and
> added a little readme:
> Are there people on the list facing the same issue?
> How do you test your error paths?
> Could this be of use for you if it was in a reusable state?
> Is there something similar already around?
> Anyone seeing bugs or improvements?
> Could it maybe even increase coverage in the LLVM test suite some day?
> Thanks for all kinds of feedback!
> Cheers, Stefan
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev