[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] [Dexter] Add !step node for testing stepping behaviour (PR #203844)

[Orlando Cazalet-Hyams via llvm-branch-commits]

================
@@ -145,23 +192,42 @@ def dump_step_results(self) -> str:
             result += f"  Active !where nodes:\n"
             for frame_idx, wheres in frame_active_wheres_list:
                 result += f"    Frame {frame_idx}: [{', '.join(wheres)}]\n"
-            if not step_match.expect_matches:
+            if not step_match.var_expect_matches and not step_match.step_expect_matches:
                 continue
             result += f"  Active !expect nodes:\n"
             matching_expects = [
-                (expect, match)
-                for expect, match in step_match.expect_matches.items()
+                (expect, match.short_str())
+                for expect, match in step_match.var_expect_matches.items()
                 if match.match_result == MatchResult.TRUE
             ]
             non_matching_expects = [
-                (expect, match)
-                for expect, match in step_match.expect_matches.items()
+                (expect, match.short_str())
+                for expect, match in step_match.var_expect_matches.items()
                 if match.match_result != MatchResult.TRUE
             ]
+
+            def step_expect_matches(expect: Step, step_line: int) -> bool:
+                expected_lines = self.expected_values[expect]
+                assert isinstance(expected_lines, list) and all(
+                    isinstance(l, int) for l in expected_lines
+                )
+                step_line_in_expected_list = step_line in expected_lines
+                if expect.kind == "never":
+                    print(f"never line hit: {step_line_in_expected_list}")
----------------
OCHyams wrote:

should this print `{step_line}` instead? 

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/203844