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.
This patch marks following tests as xfail for arm-linux target.
lldb/test/API/functionalities/load_using_paths/TestLoadUsingPaths.py
lldb/test/API/python_api/thread/TestThreadAPI.py
lldb/test/Shell/Recognizer/assert.test
Bugs have been filed for all of them for the corresponding failing
component.
This skips some tests that pass with active replay (which doesn't check
the output) but fail with passive replay. Valid reasons for this
include:
- Checking the output of the process (which doesn't run during replay),
- Checking files that cannot be captured in the VFS (non-existing or
unreadable files or files that are removed during test),
Unfortunately there's no good way to mark a test as supported for active
replay but unsupported for passive replay because the number and order
of API calls needs to be identical during capture and replay. I don't
think this is a huge loss however.
Add the skipIfReproducer decorator to the remaining tests that fail to
replay because the GDB remote packets diverge during replay. This is
*not* expected and should be fixed, but figuring out exactly what caused
the divergence has proven pretty difficult to track down.
I've marked these tests as skipped for now so we can get clean results
and detect new regressions. I have no evidence to believe that these
failures have the same root cause, so I've not assigned them a PR.
Summary:
On most hosts we were running shell commands with an empty environment.
The only exception was windows, which was inheriting the host enviroment
mostly by accident.
Running the commands in an empty environment does not sound like a
sensible default, so this patch changes Host::RunShellCommand to inherit
the host environment. This impacts both commands run via
SBPlatform::Run (in case of host platforms), as well as the "platform
shell" CLI command.
Reviewers: jingham, friss
Subscribers: lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77123
Summary: Inspired by https://reviews.llvm.org/D74636, I'm introducing a basic version of Environment in the API. More functionalities can be added as needed.
Reviewers: labath, clayborg
Subscribers: mgorny, lldb-commits, diazhector98
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76111
Pavel Labath
Jonas Devlieghere
Adrian Prantl
Muhammad Omair Javaid
Kazuaki Ishizaki
Walter Erquinigo