Skip to content
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

Backport [lldb/Test] Introduce "assertSuccess" #1425

Conversation

Teemperor
Copy link

This fixes the BreakpointNamesTest.

Summary:
A lot of our tests do 'self.assertTrue(error.Success()'. The problem
with that is that when this fails, it produces a completely useless
error message (False is not True) and the most important piece of
information -- the actual error message -- is completely hidden.

Sometimes we mitigate that by including the error message in the "msg"
argument, but this has two additional problems:

  • as the msg argument is evaluated unconditionally, one needs to be
    careful to not trigger an exception when the operation was actually
    successful.
  • it requires more typing, which means we often don't do it

assertSuccess solves these problems by taking the entire SBError object
as an argument. If the operation was unsuccessful, it can format a
reasonable error message itself. The function still accepts a "msg"
argument, which can include any additional context, but this context now
does not need to include the error message.

To demonstrate usage, I replace a number of existing assertTrue
assertions with the new function. As this process is not easily
automatable, I have just manually updated a representative sample. In
some cases, I did not update the code to use assertSuccess, but I went
for even higher-level assertion apis (runCmd, expect_expr), as these are
even shorter, and can produce even better failure messages.

Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere

Subscribers: arphaman, lldb-commits

Tags: #lldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82759

(cherry picked from commit 3567497)

Summary:
A lot of our tests do 'self.assertTrue(error.Success()'. The problem
with that is that when this fails, it produces a completely useless
error message (False is not True) and the most important piece of
information -- the actual error message -- is completely hidden.

Sometimes we mitigate that by including the error message in the "msg"
argument, but this has two additional problems:
- as the msg argument is evaluated unconditionally, one needs to be
  careful to not trigger an exception when the operation was actually
  successful.
- it requires more typing, which means we often don't do it

assertSuccess solves these problems by taking the entire SBError object
as an argument. If the operation was unsuccessful, it can format a
reasonable error message itself. The function still accepts a "msg"
argument, which can include any additional context, but this context now
does not need to include the error message.

To demonstrate usage, I replace a number of existing assertTrue
assertions with the new function. As this process is not easily
automatable, I have just manually updated a representative sample. In
some cases, I did not update the code to use assertSuccess, but I went
for even higher-level assertion apis (runCmd, expect_expr), as these are
even shorter, and can produce even better failure messages.

Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere

Subscribers: arphaman, lldb-commits

Tags: #lldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82759

(cherry picked from commit 3567497)
@Teemperor Teemperor requested review from dcci and medismailben July 7, 2020 11:19
@Teemperor
Copy link
Author

@swift-ci test

@Teemperor Teemperor requested a review from fredriss July 7, 2020 11:31
@fredriss fredriss merged commit 1c73376 into swiftlang:apple/stable/20200108 Jul 7, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants