[lldb][tests] Automatically call compute_mydir (NFC)Eliminate boilerplate of having each test manually assign to `mydir` by calling`compute_mydir` in lldbtest.py.Differential Revision: https://r
[lldb][tests] Automatically call compute_mydir (NFC)Eliminate boilerplate of having each test manually assign to `mydir` by calling`compute_mydir` in lldbtest.py.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128077
show more ...
[lldb] Fix a bug in the decorator matching logic.This changes the decorator helper `_match_decorator_property` toconsider `None` as the actual value as not a match. Using `None` for thepattern co
[lldb] Fix a bug in the decorator matching logic.This changes the decorator helper `_match_decorator_property` toconsider `None` as the actual value as not a match. Using `None` for thepattern continues to be considered a match.I discovered the issue because marking a test as NO_DEBUG_INFO_TESTCASEwill cause the call to `self.getDebugInfo()` to return `None` andincorrectly 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
[lldb/test] Print build commands in trace modeRunning tests with -t prints all lldb commands being run. It makes senseto print all the build commands as well.Differential Revision: https://revie
[lldb/test] Print build commands in trace modeRunning tests with -t prints all lldb commands being run. It makes senseto print all the build commands as well.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112212
[lldb/test] Allow indentation in inline testsThis makes it possible to use for loops (and other language constructs)in inline tests.Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112706
[lldb] Let TestPExpectTest test the right test classThis test supposed to check the test base we are using for pexpect tests, but instead it used the normal TestBaseclass we use for all other test
[lldb] Let TestPExpectTest test the right test classThis test supposed to check the test base we are using for pexpect tests, but instead it used the normal TestBaseclass we use for all other tests. TestBase already had the substrs type check since D88792 so thistest 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 intendedtarget function. Also moves the check to the very start so that we can check the argument withoutactually 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 startedfailing).Reviewed By: JDevlieghereDifferential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96556
[lldb] Also Catch invalid calls to TestPExpectTest's expect()This is a follow up to D88792 which found an issue in a call to PExpectTest'sexpect function that allows passing a string to the `subst
[lldb] Also Catch invalid calls to TestPExpectTest's expect()This is a follow up to D88792 which found an issue in a call to PExpectTest'sexpect function that allows passing a string to the `substrs` parameter. Howeverthis issue was found by just grepping and TestPExpect's expect function is stillaccepting a single string as a value to `substrs`.This patch adds the same sanity check that D88792 added to the PExpectTest'simplementation of `expect` and also adds a small test for it.Reviewed By: kastiglione, JDevlieghereDifferential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89302