Improve test process' kill signalling

[st0012]

1. remote_info.failed_process stores symbol but we only use the value's presence to check if the process is force-killed.
2. The force-killed status is directly controlled by kill_safely through kill_remote_debuggee, which is directly called right before we check the status with remote_info.failed_process.

Combining the two, we can just let kill_safely and kill_remote_debuggee return the force-killed status and not storing it in remote_info, which already contains a bunch of information.

This also eliminates the need to pass test_info to kill_safely, which makes related code easier to understand and maintain.

[ono-max]

remote_info.failed_process stores symbol, but we only use the value's presence to check if the process is force-killed.

The reason for storing the symbol is to use in console tests such as

debug/test/support/console_test_case.rb

Line 210 in c3bfcc2

flunk(create_message("Expected the #{name} program to finish",test_info))

. (Sorry, I think that I accidentally deleted this part before)

But it's ok to check each killing method(kill_remote_debuggee and kill_safely). Do you think that it'll be better?

[st0012]

But it's ok to check each killing method(kill_remote_debuggee and kill_safely). Do you think that it'll be better?

Yeah definitely. Since we always check the state right after calling kill methods, using return value will be more readable and make refactoring easier.
However, I think in those cases we can also write fixed error messages based on conditions?

[ono-max]

However, I think in those cases we can also write fixed error messages based on conditions?

Yes, that's what I said here:
"But it's ok to check each killing method"

We can write fixed error messages by checking the state in all killing methods.

[ono-max]

Yeah definitely. Since we always check the state right after calling kill methods, using return value will be more readable and make refactoring easier.

All right, Let's go with that idea.

[ono-max]

I'll review the changes tomorrow. Thank you for the explanation.

[st0012]

Yes, that's what I said here: "But it's ok to check each killing method"

Sorry I misunderstood 😅

I'll review the changes tomorrow.

Thanks!

[ono-max]

How about renaming needs_kill to signal_sent?

[st0012]

How about renaming needs_kill to signal_sent?

Yeah needs_kill is not the best name. But since we also send signal in both cases, I feel signal_sent isn't clear either.
I feel force_killed matches the state's purpose better. WDYT?

[ono-max]

Great! Thank you 👍