-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add just the test infrastructure bits from #4354 #4382
Conversation
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
If this succeeds, it might just be the solution to #4384 |
OK it succeeded twice. I think this might solve the x64 unit test failures then. Reading it fully now. @DHowett-MSFT |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This does indeed look straightforward. I don't super like the "fools the console into being in pty mode" defines sprayed around, but I don't have a better idea without either changing the entire initialization pipeline or something of that ilk. (Going to guess that you had the same mental debate and settled on this.) So I approve. Especially because it looks like this fixes the x64 unit test hang.
|
||
VERIFY_ARE_EQUAL(first.length(), cch); | ||
VERIFY_ARE_EQUAL(first, actualString); | ||
Log::Comment(NoThrowString().Format(L"Expected =\t\"%hs\"", first.c_str())); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
will this print raw escapes, or escape them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we replace 0x1b
with 0x241b
?
|
||
VERIFY_ARE_EQUAL(first.length(), cch); | ||
VERIFY_ARE_EQUAL(first, actualString); | ||
Log::Comment(NoThrowString().Format(L"Expected =\t\"%hs\"", first.c_str())); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we replace 0x1b
with 0x241b
?
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Hello @zadjii-msft! Because this pull request has the p.s. you can customize the way I help with merging this pull request, such as holding this pull request until a specific person approves. Simply @mention me (
|
WELP /azp run EDIT: why can't I just slap that into a comment and have it work? I want to be able to say something and also trigger a build ;__: |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Well https://dev.azure.com/ms/Terminal/_build/results?buildId=60592&view=logs&j=e7365288-57d7-5349-8dfa-9c195127bd77 is curious. The x86 test pass already has errors with |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Summary of the Pull Request
#4354 is a pretty complicated PR. It's got a bunch of conpty changes, but what it also has was some critical improvements to the roundtrip test suite. I'm working on some other bugfixes in the same area currently, and need these tests enhancements in those branches now. The rest of #4354 is complex enough that I don't trust it will get merged soon (if ever). However, these fixes should be in regardless.
PR Checklist
Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
This is four main changes:
CommonState
to better configure the common test state for conptyConptyRoundtripTests
into their own helper class, to be shared in multiple testsTerminalBufferTests
class, for testing the Terminal buffer directly (without conpty).This change is really easier than
would suggest, I promise.