There's no reason a finally block inside each test method wouldn't work, and that's probably the simplest solution.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:59 AM Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote: > 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
