[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D37923: Implement interactive command interruption

[Leonard Mosescu via lldb-commits]

These are all great suggestions, thanks everyone!

> We should have a test. The test would need to use pexpect or something
similar. If anyone has any pointer on how to make a test for this, please
chime in. I was thinking just a pexpect based test.
I love tests but what exactly do we want to test here? Sorry if I'm missing
something obvious - are you talking about splitting a string into chunks?
The actual interruption? ...

Also, I like the idea of exposing this though the SB APIs, but that's a
significant expansion of the original goal which is to improve the
interactive LLDB debugger. It may be nice looking at SB APIs later on, but
I'm afraid that trying to pile up everything in one change is just going to
spiral the complexity out of control.

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> That would work, but I think it's adding many more pieces to the test.
> Now there's threads, a Python layer, and multiprocess dotest infrastructure
> in the equation.  Each providing an additional source of flakiness and
> instability.
>
> If all it is is a pass-through, then just calling the function it passes
> through to is a strictly better test, since it's focusing the test on the
> underlying piece of functionality and removing additional sources of
> failure and instability from the test.
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:02 AM Jim Ingham <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd really prefer to do this as/along with an SB API test since we also
>> need commands made through the SB API to be interruptible, and we should
>> test that that also works.  So this kills two birds with one stone.
>>
>> In general, when developing any high-level features in lldb one of the
>> questions you should ask yourself is whether this is useful at the SB API
>> layer.  In this case it obviously is (actually I'm a little embarrassed I
>> didn't think of this requirement).  If so, then it's simplest to test it at
>> that layer.  If the SB API is anything more than a pass-through, then you
>> might also want to write a unit test for the underlying C++ API's.  But in
>> this case the SB function will just call the underlying CommandInterpreter
>> one, so testing at the SB layer is sufficient.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> > On Sep 19, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Zachary Turner via Phabricator <
>> reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > zturner added a comment.
>> >
>> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37923#875322, @clayborg wrote:
>> >
>> >> We should have a test. The test would need to use pexpect or something
>> similar. If anyone has any pointer on how to make a test for this, please
>> chime in. I was thinking just a pexpect based test.
>> >
>> >
>> > This kind of thing is perfect for a unit test, but I'm not sure how
>> easy that would be with the current design.  You'd basically do something
>> like:
>> >
>> >  struct MockStream {
>> >    explicit MockStream(CommandInterpreter &Interpreter, int
>> InterruptAfter)
>> >      : CommandInterpreter(Interpreter), InterruptAfter(InterruptAfter)
>> {}
>> >
>> >    CommandInterpreter &Interpreter;
>> >    const int InterruptAfter;
>> >    int Lines = 0;
>> >    std::string Buffer;
>> >
>> >    void Write(StringRef S) {
>> >      ++Lines;
>> >      if (Lines >= InterruptAfter) {
>> >        Interpreter.Interrupt();
>> >        return;
>> >      }
>> >      Buffer += S;
>> >    }
>> >  };
>> >
>> >  TEST_F(CommandInterruption) {
>> >    CommandInterpreter Interpreter;
>> >    MockStream Stream(Interpreter, 3);
>> >    Interpreter.PrintCommandOutput(Stream, "a\nb\nc\nd\ne\nf\n");
>> >    EXPECT_EQ(Stream.Lines == 3);
>> >    EXPECT_EQ(Stream.Buffer == "a\nb\nc\n");
>> >  }
>> >
>> >
>> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D37923
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20170919/4de494af/attachment.html>