[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45215: RFC/WIP: Have lit run the lldb test suite

[Jonas Devlieghere via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

JDevlieghere added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215#1056043, @labath wrote:

> I don't think this is going in a good direction TBH.
>
> You are building another layer on top of everything, whereas I think we should be cutting layers out. Besides the issues already pointed out (not being able to differentiate PASS/XFAIL/SKIP, not all .py files being test files), I see one more problem: a single file does not contain a single test -- some of our test files have dozens of tests, and this would bunch them together.


I completely agree and removing the driver logic from dotest would contribute to that goal, no?

> I think the solution here is to invent a new lit test format, instead of trying to fit our very square tests into the round ShTest boxes. Of the existing test formats, I think that actually the googletest format is closest to what we need here, and that's because it supports the notion of a "test" being different from a "file" -- gtest executables typically contain dozens if not hundreds of test, and yet googletest format is able to recognize each one individually. The only difference is that instead of running something like "my_google_test_exec --gtest_list_all_tests" you would use some python introspection to figure out the list of tests within a file.

Great, I wasn't aware that there was a dedicated googletest format. If it's a better fit then we should definitely consider using something like that.

> Besides this, having our own test format would allow us to resolve the other problems of this approach as well:
> 
> - since it's the test format who determines the result of the test, it would be trivial to come up with some sort of a protocol (or reusing an existing one) to notify lit of the full range of test results (pass, fail, xfail, unsupported)
> - the test format could know that a "test file" is everything ending in ".py" **and** starting with Test (which is exactly the rules that we follow now), so no special or new conventions would be needed.
> - it would give us full isolation between individual test methods in a file, while still having the convenience of being able to factor out common code into utility functions

If we come up with out own test format, would we be able to reuse the current dotest.py output?

> I know this is a bit more up-front work, but I think this will result in a much nicer final product, and will allow us to remove a lot more code more easily (maybe even all of unittest2 eventually).

That's totally warranted if it helps in the long term.

> (I apologise for the rashness of my response, I can go into this in more detail tomorrow).

No worries, I didn't have that impression at all. I appreciate the constructive feedback!


https://reviews.llvm.org/D45215