eduucaldas added inline comments.
================
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++) {
----------------
eduucaldas wrote:
> gribozavr2 wrote:
> > ASSERT_EQ I think would be better.
> `ASSERT_EQ` is a macro that returns void, so we cannot use it here.
>
> However that brings another question.
> Right now we have methods `treeDumpEqual*` that return `AssertionResult`s and
> we use them in our tests in the following way:
> `EXPECT_TRUE(treeDumpEqual*...)`.
> It seems to me that we should instead perform any assertion inside
> `treeDumpEqual*`, and then just call it directly in the test.
>
> WDYT? I case you agree we can perform this change in another patch.
We need the `EXPECT_TRUE` at the test site to get information about in which
line number we failed
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
