gribozavr2 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/TreeTestBase.cpp:197
+
+ bool failed = false;
+ auto AnnotatedRanges = AnnotatedCode.ranges();
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/TreeTestBase.cpp:199
+ auto AnnotatedRanges = AnnotatedCode.ranges();
+ assert(AnnotatedRanges.size() == TreeDumps.size());
+ for (auto i = 0ul; i < AnnotatedRanges.size(); i++) {
----------------
ASSERT_EQ I think would be better.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/TreeTestBase.cpp:200
+ assert(AnnotatedRanges.size() == TreeDumps.size());
+ for (auto i = 0ul; i < AnnotatedRanges.size(); i++) {
+ auto *AnnotatedNode = nodeByRange(AnnotatedRanges[i], Root);
----------------
LLVM style is usually:
unsigned i = 0; ...
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/TreeTestBase.cpp:206
+ // EXPECT_EQ shows the diff between the two strings if they are different.
+ EXPECT_EQ(TreeDumps[i].trim().str(), AnnotatedNodeDump);
+ if (AnnotatedNodeDump != TreeDumps[i].trim().str())
----------------
Could you dump the annotated source code substring to make debugging failing
tests easier?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85962/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85962
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
