Re: [RFA] completer test [was Re: [RFC] Cleanup for make_source_files_completion_list]

Keith Seitz
2013-05-15T23:47:20Z

On 05/15/2013 03:33 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to use the "complete" command? Here is what I see
> when I use it:
>
> (gdb) complete break filesy
> break filesym
> break filesym.c

Is that necessarily "better" than testing what a user would actually
type? I don't know. gdb.base/completion.exp uses both forms.

> Also, ISTR "send_gdb" is deprecated, and one should use
> "gdb_test_multiple" instead. WDYT?

Is send_gdb deprecated or gdb_expect? Or is their direct use discouraged?

This is the first I've heard of send_gdb being deprecated. As far as I
can tell, there is no other way to directly test completion this way. I
do see, though, that completion.exp uses gdb_test_multiple instead of
gdb_expect... If it truly is deprecated, I would expect send_gdb to be
made "private" in some way. [deprecated_send_gdb?] Or at least mentioned
in lib/gdb.exp.

If there is a preference for one or the other [or an actual policy], I
will certainly make necessary changes.

I'm using a similar test strategy for my explicit completion tests,
which I am about to submit...

Thank you for bringing this up.

Keith