JDevlieghere added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/unittests/ScriptInterpreter/Lua/LuaTests.cpp:53
+TEST_F(ScriptInterpreterTest, ExecuteOneLine) {
+ DebuggerSP debugger_sp = Debugger::CreateInstance();
+ ASSERT_TRUE(debugger_sp);
----------------
labath wrote:
> I'm not actually opposed to this (and it's nice to know that this could work
> if we need it), but why do this as a unit test? It seems like this could be
> tested equally well with a `script` command through the lldb driver. I was
> imagining the unit tests would be most useful for the lower level
> functionality -- roughly corresponding to the `Lua` class. Right now that
> class is pretty simple and doesn't really need a unit test, but I expect it
> will become more complex over time...
Yes, I just wanted to show that it's possible :-) I've also included a test for
the Lua class.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71234/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71234
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
