On 9 February 2016 at 17:51, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > I agree that you don't need arbitrary complexity, but I think there are some > things we would greatly benefit from. For example, have you ever seen this? > > @expectedFailureWindows > @expectedFailureGcc > @expectedFailureHostLinux > > That's 3 decorators, when you could write it as 1: > > @expectedFailure(or(oslist="windows", compiler="gcc", hostoslist="linux"))
Maybe that's a matter of preference, but I would much rather see the former than the latter. What I would like to avoid is having two decorators like: @xfail(or(a=A, not(b=B)), c=C') @xfail(a=A', or(b=B', not(c=C'))) on a single test. At that point it becomes quite impossible to figure out when the test gets run. Also, arguably, if you are doing "or", then you are probably dealing with separate bugs, and each should deserve it's own bugnumber. pl _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
