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
This changes the decorator helper `_match_decorator_property` to
consider `None` as the actual value as not a match. Using `None` for the
pattern continues to be considered a match.
I discovered the issue because marking a test as NO_DEBUG_INFO_TESTCASE
will cause the call to `self.getDebugInfo()` to return `None` and
incorrectly skip or XFAIL the corresponding test.
I used the above scenario to create a test for the decorators.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123401
Running tests with -t prints all lldb commands being run. It makes sense
to print all the build commands as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112212
This test supposed to check the test base we are using for pexpect tests, but instead it used the normal TestBase
class we use for all other tests. TestBase already had the substrs type check since D88792 so this
test was passing because of that.
This just changes the test base of the test to the pexpect one so that the `expect` calls find their intended
target function. Also moves the check to the very start so that we can check the argument without
actually having to start a terminal and all that jazz.
(I found this by accident as D88792 got somehow reverted in a downstream branch so this test started
failing).
Reviewed By: JDevlieghere
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96556
This is a follow up to D88792 which found an issue in a call to PExpectTest's
expect function that allows passing a string to the `substrs` parameter. However
this issue was found by just grepping and TestPExpect's expect function is still
accepting a single string as a value to `substrs`.
This patch adds the same sanity check that D88792 added to the PExpectTest's
implementation of `expect` and also adds a small test for it.
Reviewed By: kastiglione, JDevlieghere
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89302
