aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/lib/debugger/test/int_eval_SUITE.erl
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2015-06-18Change license text to APLv2Bruce Yinhe
2015-04-15Raise more descriptive error messages for failed map operationsBjörn Gustavsson
According to EEP-43 for maps, a 'badmap' exception should be generated when an attempt is made to update non-map term such as: <<>>#{a=>42} That was not implemented in the OTP 17. José Valim suggested that we should take the opportunity to improve the errors coming from map operations: http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-February/083588.html This commit implement better errors from map operations similar to his suggestion. When a map update operation (Map#{...}) or a BIF that expects a map is given a non-map term, the exception will be: {badmap,Term} This kind of exception is similar to the {badfun,Term} exception from operations that expect a fun. When a map operation requires a key that is not present in a map, the following exception will be raised: {badkey,Key} José Valim suggested that the exception should be {badkey,Key,Map}. We decided not to do that because the map could potentially be huge and cause problems if the error propagated through links to other processes. For BIFs, it could be argued that the exceptions could be simply 'badmap' and 'badkey', because the bad map and bad key can be found in the argument list for the BIF in the stack backtrace. However, for the map update operation (Map#{...}), the bad map or bad key will not be included in the stack backtrace, so that information must be included in the exception reason itself. For consistency, the BIFs should raise the same exceptions as update operation. If more than one key is missing, it is undefined which of keys that will be reported in the {badkey,Key} exception.
2014-05-03Fix evaluation of map updates in the debugger and erl_evalAnthony Ramine
Reported-by: José Valim
2014-03-15Fix evaluation of empty map updates in the debuggerAnthony Ramine
2011-08-16emulator: Add a fourth element in exception stacktracesBjörn Gustavsson
This commit is a preparation for introducing location information (filename/line number) in stacktraces in exceptions. Currently a stack trace looks like: [{Mod1,Function1,Arity1}, . . . {ModN,FunctionN,ArityN}] Add a forth element to each tuple that can be used indication the filename and line number of the source file: [{Mod1,Function1,Arity1,Location1}, . . . {ModN,FunctionN,ArityN,LocationN}] In this commit, the fourth element will just be an empty list, and we will change all code that look at or manipulate stacktraces.
2011-08-16Don't include tail-recursive calls in stacktracesBjörn Gustavsson
The stacktrace in debugger-generated exceptions should be as similar to stacktraces in BEAM-generated exceptions as possible.
2011-03-11Update copyright yearsBjörn-Egil Dahlberg
2011-02-17Rename Suite Callback to Common Test HookLukas Larsson
2011-02-17Fix formatting and also some migration fixes for debuggerLukas Larsson
2011-02-17Add init_per_suite and end_per_suiteLukas Larsson
2011-02-17Add ts_install_scb to suite/0Lukas Larsson
2011-02-17Update debugger tests to conform with common_test standardLukas Larsson
2011-02-17Update all fin_per_testcase to end_per_testcase.Lukas Larsson
2010-11-30debugger: fix int eval testcaseBjörn-Egil Dahlberg
2010-09-03Add test suite for debuggerBjörn Gustavsson