This test is flaky on Green Dragon as it often fails when the process state
is "Invalid" in the assert:
self.assertEqual(process.GetState(), lldb.eStateExited)
It seems this is related to just doing "run" which apparently invalidates
the Target's process in case it's still running and needs to be restarted.
Just doing 'continue' on the process (and ignoring the error in case it already
finished) prevents that and makes this consistently pass for me.
Just pushing this out to get Green Dragon back online.
Recently added TestTargetAPI.py test "test_launch_simple" is failing on
Arm/AArch64 Linux targets. Putting them to skip until fixed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85235
Currently SBTarget::LaunchSimple creates a new LaunchInfo which means it
ignores any target properties that have been set. Instead, it should
start from the target's LaunchInfo and populated the specified fields.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85235
The patch was reverted 27d52cd86a because of failures in
TestWeakSymbols.py. These have now been addressed in D83552.
The original commit message was:
This function was documented to overwrite entries with D76111, which was
adding a couple of similar functions. However, this function (unlike the
functions added in that patch) was/is not actually overwriting variables
-- any pre-existing variables would get ignored.
This behavior does not seem to be intentional. In fact, before the refactor in
D41359, this function could introduce duplicate entries, which could
have very surprising effects both inside lldb and on other applications
(some applications would take the first value, some the second one; in
lldb, attempting to unset a variable could make the second variable
become active, etc.).
Overwriting seems to be the most reasonable behavior here, so change the
code to match documentation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83306
Always clean up subprocesses on tear down instead of relying on the
caller to do so. This is not only less error prone but also means the
tests can be more concise.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83787
Summary:
This function was documented to overwrite entries with D76111, which was
adding a couple of similar functions. However, this function (unlike the
functions added in that patch) was/is not actually overwriting variables
-- any pre-existing variables would get ignored.
This behavior does not seem to be intentional. In fact, before the refactor in
D41359, this function could introduce duplicate entries, which could
have very surprising effects both inside lldb and on other applications
(some applications would take the first value, some the second one; in
lldb, attempting to unset a variable could make the second variable
become active, etc.).
Overwriting seems to be the most reasonable behavior here, so change the
code to match documentation.
Reviewers: clayborg, wallace, jingham
Subscribers: lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83306
Summary:
A lot of our tests do 'self.assertTrue(error.Success()'. The problem
with that is that when this fails, it produces a completely useless
error message (False is not True) and the most important piece of
information -- the actual error message -- is completely hidden.
Sometimes we mitigate that by including the error message in the "msg"
argument, but this has two additional problems:
- as the msg argument is evaluated unconditionally, one needs to be
careful to not trigger an exception when the operation was actually
successful.
- it requires more typing, which means we often don't do it
assertSuccess solves these problems by taking the entire SBError object
as an argument. If the operation was unsuccessful, it can format a
reasonable error message itself. The function still accepts a "msg"
argument, which can include any additional context, but this context now
does not need to include the error message.
To demonstrate usage, I replace a number of existing assertTrue
assertions with the new function. As this process is not easily
automatable, I have just manually updated a representative sample. In
some cases, I did not update the code to use assertSuccess, but I went
for even higher-level assertion apis (runCmd, expect_expr), as these are
even shorter, and can produce even better failure messages.
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere
Subscribers: arphaman, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82759
After this patch all remaining tests should pass on macOS when replayed
from a reproducer.
To capture the reproducers:
./bin/llvm-lit ../llvm-project/lldb/test/ --param lldb-run-with-repro=capture
To replay the reproducers:
./bin/llvm-lit ../llvm-project/lldb/test/ --param lldb-run-with-repro=replay
Many tests use (commented out) print statement for debugging the test
itself. This patch adds a new trace method to lldbtest to reuse the
existing tracing infrastructure and replace these print statements.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80448
Remove commented out code, fix the indentation and always use the full
path to the executable. The latter is necessary for the test to pass
from reproducer replay.
Jonas Devlieghere
Raphael Isemann
Muhammad Omair Javaid
Jim Ingham
Pavel Labath
Davide Italiano
Adrian Prantl