On 14 January 2016 at 21:52, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > So what if tests could be *either* a method *or* a nested class. If it's a > nested class, it could provide setUp, tearDown, and run methods. These > setup and teardown methods can do whatever they want specific to the > individual test, and it also provides the exception safe way to clean up.
I don't think this is supported by unittest, which is what determines what constitutes a "test". Nothing that couldn't be hacked around, but I don't see the added value over just using a finally block. Was there any reason we couldn't use that? I don't think it prevents code reuse, and it's a standard way of doing things that everyone should be familiar with. pl _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
