llvm/llvm-project

[LLDB] Swig python extensions are missing test coverage

Open

#168920 opened on Nov 20, 2025

View on GitHub
 (14 comments) (2 reactions) (0 assignees)C++ (26,378 stars) (10,782 forks)batch import
good first issuelldbtest-suite

Description

@jimingham pointed out on #168619 that a lot of the lldb extensions are either not tested or don't have direct testing. I've opened this issue as a good new user issue.

The largest offenders are

While target and valueobject actually have more properties, a quick grep showed a lot of these are exercised in existing tests.

Contributor guide

Tech stack
pythoncpp
Domain
testing
Issue type
test
DifficultyEstimated implementation difficulty for a new contributor, from 1 for very small changes to 5 for expert-level work.
2
Estimated timeA rough time range for an experienced contributor to investigate, implement, test, and prepare a pull request.
half day
Activity statusHow available the issue appears right now: fresh, active, stale, blocked, or waiting on maintainer input.
active
ClarityHow clearly the issue explains the expected change, acceptance criteria, and next step.
mostly clear
Prerequisites
Pythonbasic SWIGLLDB
Newbie friendlinessA 1-100 score estimating how approachable this issue is for first-time contributors.
75
Research direction
Focus on SBProcessExtensions.i in the lldb bindings directory. Look at existing tests for SBFrameExtensions and SBTargetExtensions for patterns. Open the SWIG interface file and identify exposed functions/methods, then write test cases that exercise them. Review the LLDB test infrastructure (e.g., lldb/test/API) for how to add Python based tests.