-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 845
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 start_and_break_on
decorator to simplify gdb tests
#2146
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
from . import binaries | ||
|
||
|
||
def start_and_break_on(binary, bps, *args): |
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.
Why don't we make it a pytest fixture instead of a decorator?
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.
Two reasons:
- A function that the user could just import themselves is not a good pytest fixture. The way we use
start_binary
right now is not great. If we instead automatically started it for them and passed in the process object, that would be a better fixture, but then the user can't customize the binary, breakpoints, etc. - Even if we pass this function in as a fixture, the user still has to call it as one of the first things they do. Tests are usually better when the initialization has happened before the function is even called, which can be done with a decorator.
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.
@disconnect3d lmk what you think. I prefer this approach and was going to migrate some other tests to it, but will wait until you let me know you're ok with it.
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.
@gsingh93 I think making it a decorator makes things more complex unnecessarily? Why not just a standard function call that would be called within the test function instead? Some tests could want to call it multiple times too.
Regarding fixtures, the fixtures are kinda broken bcoz we never run tests all together but instead we run them each one by one. Fixtures allows for 'session fixtures' where the fixture would be called once for all tests in a test session etc. Another good thing of fixtures is that u can yield in them and whatever code is after the yield will be executed after the test finishes, as a kind of 'destructor'. But yeah, maybe its not so needed here.
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.
@gsingh93 ping :)
@start_and_break_on
takes a binary to run, a list of breakpoints, and optionally arguments to pass to the binary. It performs the same setupstart_binary
does, but also adds the breakpoints and then continues the program. This lets us remove some boilerplate from tests, as shown in the plist tests.