[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D14406: Don't depend on implementation details of unittest2 for our custom decorators

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

zturner added inline comments.

================
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbtest.py:605
@@ -611,2 +604,3 @@
             if expected_fn(self):
-                raise case._UnexpectedSuccess(sys.exc_info(), bugnumber)
+                xfail_func = unittest2.expectedFailure(func)
+                xfail_func(*args, **kwargs)
----------------
tberghammer wrote:
> You are swallowing the bug number here
> 
> Based on the implementation of unittest2.expectedFailure I think you should write the following to preserve it (I haven't tested it):
> 
> ```
> unittest2.expectedFailure(bugnumber)(func)
> ```
Actually I think it already has the same sematnics.  When I use your version it doesn't work.  I think it works with my version because of the `if six.callable(bugnumber)` check on line 610 (which is cut out in the context here, but you can check it).

I'll put it in like this and see what happens


http://reviews.llvm.org/D14406