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

[Jim Ingham via lldb-commits]

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 11:25 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> 
> zturner added a comment.
> 
> For example, what if someone adds a test that uses a very small amount of functionality but tests the thing it's supposed to test.  Do we block the change and say "please make this test more complicated, we want to test as much stuff as possible"?  Of course not.  It's ridiculous right?
> 

Indeed that is silly.  But not much sillier than "don't add a step to that test because you aren't covering step explicitly in this test..."

> It sounds like at least 2 people on this thread know of specific areas where we're lacking test coverage.  Why not spend a few days doing nothing but improving test coverage?
> 

Don't think I was claiming to KNOW where we are missing test coverage.  I'm simply saying that in my past experience both with the lldb & gdb test suites we often catch bugs because of failures in a part of a test that was not essential to the test being run.  That's because the debugger is not like something like a compiler, where you feed in some input and it proceeds regularly through a machine to spit some output at the end.  The debugger keeps a lot more state over multiple operations, so you can get bugs that are because you did A then B rather than B then A, or A after B, etc.  That's just the nature of the thing.  So some amount of fuzziness is really helpful for catching these sort of interactions.

Jim


> 
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D16334
> 
> 
>