[LLDB] Swig python extensions are missing test coverage

[Jlalond]

@jimingham pointed out on #168619 that a lot of the lldb extensions are either not tested or don't have direct testing. I've opened this issue as a good new user issue.

The largest offenders are

• SBFrameExtensions
• SBTargetExtensions
• SBProcessExtensions

While target and valueobject actually have more properties, a quick grep showed a lot of these are exercised in existing tests.

[llvmbot]

Hi!

This issue may be a good introductory issue for people new to working on LLVM. If you would like to work on this issue, your first steps are:

1. Check that no other contributor is working on this issue. If someone is assigned to the issue or claimed to be working on it, ping the person. After one week without a response, the assignee may be changed.
2. Leave a comment indicating that you are working on the issue, or just create a pull request after following the steps below. Mention this issue in the description of the pull request.
3. Fix the issue locally.
4. Run the test suite locally. Remember that the subdirectories under test/ create fine-grained testing targets, so you can e.g. use make check-clang-ast to only run Clang's AST tests.
5. Create a Git commit.
6. Run git clang-format HEAD~1 to format your changes.
7. Open a pull request to the upstream repository on GitHub. Detailed instructions can be found in GitHub's documentation. Mention this issue in the description of the pull request.

If you have any further questions about this issue, don't hesitate to ask via a comment in the thread below.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-lldb

Author: Jacob Lalonde (Jlalond)

@jimingham pointed out on #168619 that a lot of the lldb extensions are either not tested or don't have direct testing. I've opened this issue as a good new user issue.

The largest offenders are

• SBFrameExtensions
• SBTargetExtensions
• SBProcessExtensions

While target and valueobject actually have more properties, a quick grep showed a lot of these are exercised in existing tests.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-good-first-issue

Author: Jacob Lalonde (Jlalond)

@jimingham pointed out on #168619 that a lot of the lldb extensions are either not tested or don't have direct testing. I've opened this issue as a good new user issue.

The largest offenders are

• SBFrameExtensions
• SBTargetExtensions
• SBProcessExtensions

While target and valueobject actually have more properties, a quick grep showed a lot of these are exercised in existing tests.

[JDevlieghere]

Thanks for filing this issue. I've converted the list to checkboxes so that as we make progress we can check them off without someone accidentally doing redundant work.

[ahmednoursphinx]

Hey @Jlalond i would like to work on this if possible

[akparmar004]

could i be assigned to this one??

[JDevlieghere]

You don't need to be assigned to work on an issue. There are multiple classes listed in the issue and they should each have separate PRs. There's an opportunity to parallelize the work, and you can synchronize here which part either of you would like to work on to avoid redundant work.

[ahmednoursphinx]

That's great i will work on SBFrameExtensions

[prakriti-bh]

Hey, can I work on SBTargetExtensions

[journalD]

I will try working on SBProcessExtensions