JDevlieghere added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/examples/python/scripted_process/scripted_process.py:18
+
+ Attributes:
+ args (lldb.SBStructuredData): Dictionary holding arbitrary values
----------------
Doesn't the python documentation generator infer the attributes and methods
from this file? If not, is it worth having to keep it in sync?
================
Comment at: lldb/examples/python/scripted_process/scripted_process.py:67-71
+ self.process_id = 0
+ self.memory_regions = []
+ self.threads = []
+ self.loaded_images = []
+ self.stops = []
----------------
Personally I don't think these belongs in the base class:
1. The corresponding methods don't return these lists.
2. More importantly, if they're attributes then that becomes part of the
interface. Now every implementation needs to populate e.g. the `threads` list
while they might want to compute that lazily, like some of the OS plugin
implementations do.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/functionalities/scripted_process/TestScriptedProcess.py:27
+ def test_python_plugin_package(self):
+ """Test that the lldb python module has a `plugins.scripted_process`
+ package."""
----------------
None of the expect calls seems to be checking that the package exists and can
be imported?
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/functionalities/scripted_process/TestScriptedProcess.py:33
+ self.expect('script dir(lldb.plugins)',
+ patterns=["scripted_process"])
+
----------------
It's not clear to me what this is actually testing. The same is true for the
other `expect` calls below. Maybe a comment or add a failure string to the
expect calls.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95712/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95712
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
