labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I think this is a good idea. I have glanced over the patch, and I have found a
couple of places where your script gets things wrong. They all involve doing
boolean expressions in the assertion, which takes on a different meaning when
you replace the comparison operator with a comma.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/functionalities/process_group/TestChangeProcessGroup.py:70
value =
thread.GetSelectedFrame().EvaluateExpression("release_child_flag = 1")
- self.assertTrue(value.IsValid() and value.GetValueAsUnsigned(0) == 1)
+ self.assertEquals(value.IsValid() and value.GetValueAsUnsigned(0), 1)
process.Continue()
----------------
This is not right. It should probably be two asserts.
================
Comment at: lldb/test/API/macosx/thread-names/TestInterruptThreadNames.py:39
- self.assertTrue(inferior_set_up.IsValid() and
inferior_set_up.GetValueAsSigned() == 1, "Check that the program was able to
create its threads within the allotted time")
+ self.assertEquals(inferior_set_up.IsValid() and
inferior_set_up.GetValueAsSigned(), 1, "Check that the program was able to
create its threads within the allotted time")
----------------
same here
================
Comment at: lldb/test/API/tools/lldb-vscode/launch/TestVSCode_launch.py:147
output = self.get_stdout()
- self.assertTrue(output is None or len(output) == 0,
+ self.assertEquals(output is None or len(output), 0,
"expect no program output")
----------------
An equivalent expression would be `if output: assertEquals(len(output), 0)`,
though I'm not sure why we'd need both checks tbh -- we should have a
consistent way of reporting "no output"...
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74475/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D74475
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
