labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45332#1058976, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45332#1058970, @zturner wrote: > > > I don't think `sys.path` is set up correctly to be able to find the > > lldbtest package from the `lldb/lit` folder. > > > > These things kind of evolved separately, and the `lldb/lit` folder was > > created as a place to start iterating on LLVM-style lit / FileCheck tests. > > These kind of tests -- by definition -- don't really use the SB API, so no > > work was ever done to set up paths correctly so that it could write `import > > lldb` or to re-use any of the other stuff from `packages/Python`. > > > > I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, but usually the canonical > > structuring is to have the test files in the same tree as the lit > > configuration. So perhaps you could put a lit configuration file in > > `lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite` and have that be separate from `lldb/lit`, > > with the goal of eventually (possibly) merging them. Then have a separate > > CMake target so you'd still have `check-lldb-lit` which goes into the > > `lldb/lit` directory, and another one like `check-lldb-lit-dotest` which > > starts from the `lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite` directory. > > > > On the other hand, if you want to see how `dotest.py` sets up its > > `sys.path`, have a look at `lldb/test/dotest.py` The magic is in this > > `use_lldb_suite` function, which walks backwards through the tree until it > > finds the root, then dives into the `lldbsuite` folder to manually add it > > to `sys.path`. > > > Do you feel all that outweighs the alternative of just having the format in > `llvm/Utils` as is the case in this diff? We already have some LLDB specific > stuff there and I would argue that conceptually it makes (at least a little) > sense to have all the format living together. I don't think it needs to be that complex. You already have LLDB_SOURCE_DIR from `lit.site.cfg.in`, so it should only be a matter of doing something like this in `lit.cfg`: sys.path.append(os.path.join(config.lldb_src_root, "whereever_is_the_format_file") from something import LLDBTest config.test_format = LLDBTest(...) If we can make things as simple as this, then I think we should move this to the lldb repo. ================ Comment at: utils/lit/lit/formats/lldbtest.py:32 + base, ext = os.path.splitext(filename) + if ext in localConfig.suffixes: + yield lit.Test.Test(testSuite, path_in_suite + ---------------- Do we need the suffixes to be configurable? The whole testsuite is very specific to python and I don't see us running non-python files through this method any time soon. ================ Comment at: utils/lit/lit/formats/lldbtest.py:60 + + passing_test_line = 'RESULT: PASSED' + if passing_test_line not in out: ---------------- This line only appears if you run dotest in `--no-multiprocess` mode, but I don't see where you are adding that. Am I missing something? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D45332 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
