ioeric added inline comments.
================
Comment at: unittests/Format/CleanupTest.cpp:125
@@ -123,7 +124,3 @@
std::string Expected = "class A {\nA() {} };";
- std::vector<tooling::Range> Ranges;
- Ranges.push_back(tooling::Range(17, 0));
- Ranges.push_back(tooling::Range(19, 0));
- std::string Result = cleanup(Code, Ranges);
- EXPECT_EQ(Expected, Result);
+ EXPECT_EQ(Expected, cleanupAroundOffsets({17, 19}, Code));
----------------
djasper wrote:
> I think for such short test cases, at least, I'd just inline the string
> literals, e.g.:
>
> EXPECT_EQ("class A {\nA() {} };",
> cleanupAroundOffsets({17, 19}, "class A {\nA() : , {} };"));
>
> But not sure whether it's better.
I prefer defining variables since it is easier to read/compare and also
consistent with other test cases.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24501
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
