davide added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42656#991065, @jingham wrote:
> There are a whole bunch of other tests that test completion in this file that > use the exact same mechanism but don't seem to be flakey. Why is this one > test flakey? > > If for instance it's because "Fo" ends up being ambiguous because we chose > too common a start string, then you could trivially fix the test by choosing > a more uncommon name to complete on. But I'd want to know why this test is > flakey first. > > I also don't see why you say this test doesn't test something important. The > ability to auto-complete symbol names it pretty important to command-line > lldb users. If anything we should have more tests of the symbol completer... Apologies, I was thinking of another test (happens when there are multiple `UNEXPECTED SUCCESSES` ;) This seems to pass pretty reliably locally. I'd go for UNXFAILING this unless there are objections. https://reviews.llvm.org/D42656 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
