You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A regression was found in dyninst/dyninst#146 that attaching to a process without specifying the executable was broken. The documentation for Process::attachProcess does state that the executable is optional. AFAICS this is never tested anywhere.
It's not clear to me the best way to add this. Currently, all tests can run in either create or attach mode. It seems undesirable to add an entire test matrix of attach-no-exe. Is there a good way to write a targeted attach test for this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Seems like this should be a variant on the basic proccontrol test (pc_launch)--either we use a custom setup/teardown path, or we add an extra process when pc_launch is running in attach mode. Also, we should most likely change the proccontrol fixtures so that attach defaults to the minimal default, and the extra testing is of attach with arguments.
A regression was found in dyninst/dyninst#146 that attaching to a process without specifying the executable was broken. The documentation for
Process::attachProcess
does state that the executable is optional. AFAICS this is never tested anywhere.It's not clear to me the best way to add this. Currently, all tests can run in either create or attach mode. It seems undesirable to add an entire test matrix of attach-no-exe. Is there a good way to write a targeted attach test for this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: