[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D16936: Remove expectedFailureWindows decorator

[Pavel Labath via lldb-commits]

I think this is getting way too complicated. I haven't seen any test
which needs such complicated combinations of skip conditions (and I
hope I never see one).


On 9 February 2016 at 01:24, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> 1. Skips if all conditions are true. @skipIf(all(A=a, B=b, C=c))
> 2. Skips if any condition is true. @skipIf(any(A=a, B=b, C=c))
This is equivalent to:
@skipIf(A=a)
@skipIf(B=b)
@skipIf(C=c)
which we already support.

> 3. Skips if none of the conditions are true. @skipIf(none(A=a, B=b, C=c))
This can also be written as @skipIf(A=no_match(a), B=no_match(b), ...)

I think it is a could idea to keep the skip conditions in some kind of
a disjunctive normal form (as they are now), because it makes it clear
what the decorator is going to do without having to do mental
backflips to figure out the effect.

I think the problem here is that you occasionally need to skip based
on a strange condition, which cannot be expressed as a combination of
existing flags, no matter how many combinators you add (linux
distribution name, and android api level are the two that I can think
of now), but these can be solved with passing a "function=" argument
to @expectedFailureAll. If we see the same kind of a condition
function passed to the decorator very often, then we probably need to
figure out how to add that as one of the "standard" keyword arguments.

pl