[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24988: Improvements to testing blacklist

[Francis Ricci via lldb-commits]

fjricci added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988#559775, @tfiala wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988#559314, @fjricci wrote:
>
> > For an example of something that couldn't be disabled with the original implementation, consider a test like:
> >
> > `CreateDuringStepTestCase.test_step_inst`
> >
> > Disabling by method name (`test_step_inst`) would also disable `CreateDuringInstructionStepTestCase.test_step_inst`.
>
>
> I see what you're saying there.
>
> The part you're missing is that the Test Case class name itself does not have to be unique, either.  i.e. You *can* have two CreateDuringStepTestCase classes in different files.  Nothing uniquifies at that level.


Ahh, I see. I didn't realize that we could have duplication in the test case names as well.

> That is why I'm saying you need to include the module name, which comes from the filename, or have it be something like FileBaseName:TestCase.test_method. I have to do this in the test runner architecture for this very reason. And you will find at least some test cases that are cut and pasted and therefore have duplicate test case names (at least, they used to exist, and nothing enforces them being different in the runner logic).

I'll try this then.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D24988