-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 855
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
Open
gsingh93
wants to merge
2
commits into
pwndbg:dev
Choose a base branch
from
gsingh93:test-decorator
base: dev
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,3 +1,31 @@ | ||
from __future__ import annotations | ||
|
||
import functools | ||
|
||
import gdb | ||
|
||
import tests | ||
|
||
from . import binaries | ||
|
||
|
||
def start_and_break_on(binary, bps, *args): | ||
def decorator(func): | ||
@functools.wraps(func) | ||
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs): | ||
path = binaries.get(binary) | ||
|
||
gdb.execute("file " + path) | ||
gdb.execute("set exception-verbose on") | ||
gdb.execute("starti " + " ".join(args)) | ||
|
||
if bps is not None and len(bps) > 0: | ||
for bp in bps: | ||
gdb.execute(f"break {bp}") | ||
gdb.execute("continue") | ||
|
||
return func(*args, **kwargs) | ||
|
||
return wrapper | ||
|
||
return decorator |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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:
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.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 :)
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.
Do you mean it makes things more complex for the test writer or just in the testing framework in general?
I do think it makes the testing framework a bit more complicated, but I think declarative approaches like this are better in a lot of cases, especially for tests.
That being said, I think even just calling a function like you said would be better than the current fixture approach, so if you still don't want the decorator, I'll change it to that.
BTW, part of the motivation for this was thinking of a possible future extension to the testing framework that could look like this:
Essentially we could just define functions that would test some functionality when the specific breakpoint in
on_break
was hit. No need to manually start the binary, set breakpoints, or continue, everything is handled for you and the test author literally only writes the test code.I think this could be useful later in the LLDB rewrite, if we abstract all the code dealing with GDB away right now, then later we can just modify the test framework to handle LLDB and the tests should still work.
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.
I mean its generally more code and more indirection. Not everyone is a Python expert and knows how exactly decorators work, when and how to use it, it requires looking it up and so on.
(There is a similar problem with pytest fixtures, but yeah)
The future extension looks nice, but anytime something breaks and someone would have to debug it, they will have harder time to do it due to all misdirections :P
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.
So yeah, lets maybe switch to calling a function for now just for the sake of simplicity (?)