It has been markad as XFAIL here
de2ddc8f3146bd87152ea86b533541039541efe1, but I haven't found the reason
for that, and apparently, it passes against the Linux target.
The Platform class currently has two functions to resolve an executable:
`ResolveExecutable` and `ResolveRemoteExecutable`. The former strictly
deals with local files while the latter can handle potentially remote
files. I couldn't figure out why the distinction matters, at the latter
is a super-set of the former.
To make things even more confusion, we had a similar but not identical
implementation in RemoteAwarePlatform where its implementation of
`ResolveExecutable` could handle remote files. To top it all off, we had
copy-pasted implementation, dead code included in
`PlatformAppleSimulator` and `PlatformRemoteDarwinDevice`.
I went ahead and unified all the different implementation on the
original `ResolveRemoteExecutable` implementation. As far as I can tell,
it should work for every other platform, and the test suite (on macOS)
seems to agree with me, except for a small wording change.
This is an ongoing series of commits that are reformatting our Python
code. Reformatting is done with `black` (23.1.0).
If you end up having problems merging this commit because you have made
changes to a python file, the best way to handle that is to run `git
checkout --ours <yourfile>` and then reformat it with black.
RFC: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-document-and-standardize-python-code-style
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D151460
Eliminate boilerplate of having each test manually assign to `mydir` by calling
`compute_mydir` in lldbtest.py.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128077
At the moment nearly every test calls something similar to
`self.dbg.CreateTarget(self.getBuildArtifact("a.out"))` and them sometimes
checks if the created target is actually valid with something like
`self.assertTrue(target.IsValid(), "some useless text")`.
Beside being really verbose the error messages generated by this pattern are
always just indicating that the target failed to be created but now why.
This patch introduces a helper function `createTestTarget` to our Test class
that creates the target with the much more verbose `CreateTarget` overload that
gives us back an SBError (with a fancy error). If the target couldn't be created
the function prints out the SBError that LLDB returned and asserts for us. It
also defaults to the "a.out" build artifact path that nearly all tests are using
to avoid to hardcode "a.out" in every test.
I converted a bunch of tests to the new function but I'll do the rest of the
test suite as follow ups.
Reviewed By: JDevlieghere
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102771
Add preconditions to `TestBase.expect()` that catch semantically invalid calls
that happen to succeed anyway. This also fixes the broken callsites caught by
these checks.
This prevents the following incorrect calls:
1. `self.expect("lldb command", "some substr")`
2. `self.expect("lldb command", "assert message", "some substr")`
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88792
This updates the errors reported by expect()
to something like:
```
Ran command:
"help"
Got output:
Debugger commands:
<...>
Expecting start string: "Debugger commands:" (was found)
Expecting end string: "foo" (was not found)
```
(see added tests for more examples)
This shows the user exactly what was run,
what checks passed and which failed. Along with
whether that check was supposed to pass.
(including what regex patterns matched)
These lines are also output to the test
trace file, whether the test passes or not.
Note that expect() will still fail at the first failed
check, in line with previous behaviour.
Also I have flipped the wording of the assert
message functions (.*_MSG) to describe failures
not successes. This makes more sense as they are
only shown on assert failures.
Reviewed By: labath
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86792
