klimek added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27104#607161, @lukasza wrote:
> Forcing shallow matching means that unit test below will stop passing after
> this CL.
>
> TEST(HasDeclaration, DeepTagType) {
> std::string input =
> "class Foo {};\n"
> "using Bar = Foo;\n"
> "void Function(Bar param) {}\n";
>
> // Matcher for declaration of the Foo class.
> auto param_type_decl_matcher = cxxRecordDecl(hasName("Foo"));
>
> // hasDeclaration / qualType-flavour.
> EXPECT_TRUE(matches(input, parmVarDecl(
> hasName("param"),
> hasType(qualType(hasDeclaration(decl(param_type_decl_matcher)))))));
> }
>
>
> I am working on a tool that renames methods in a specific namespace - the
> tool depends on hasDeclaration doing deep-matching to tell whether an
> UnresolvedUsingValueDecl and/or CXXDependentScopeMemberExpr end up pointing
> at a record or template from the namespace of interest.
>
> Q1: I assume that the breaking aspect of this CL is understood and accepted?
Yes. That this worked was by chance.
> Q2: Can you please provide an example code (here or in the CL description)
> for how to achieve deep matching (since AFAIU hasDeclaration would no longer
> do deep matching after the CL under review)? Can deep matching be achieved
> by combining existing matchers with the now shallow hasDeclaration? Or does
> deep matching require authoring a custom matcher? How would the custom
> matcher look like (i.e. would it have to consider all possible types that can
> be desugared - e.g. requiring separate code for each possible type node -
> i.e. having separate code for hopping over a type alias and over other type
> nodes).
I think we should either:
a) add a hasAnyDeclaration matcher, or
b) add a desugarsTo() matcher that just triest to run getAs<> on the node.
I'm going to get you an implementation in a different CL.
================
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTraversalTest.cpp:250
}
TEST(HasDeclaration, HasDeclarationOfCXXNewExpr) {
----------------
lukasza wrote:
> Could you please add a unit test that covers a scenario made possible by your
> CL and which involves an elaborated type?
>
> TEST(HasDeclaration, ElaboratedTypeAndTemplateSpecializationType) {
> std::string input =
> "namespace Namespace {\n"
> "template<typename T>\n"
> "class Template {\n"
> " public:\n"
> " void Method() {}\n"
> "};\n"
> "} // namespace Namespace\n"
> "template <typename U>\n"
> "void Function(Namespace::Template<U> param) {\n"
> " param.Method();\n"
> "};\n";
>
> // Matcher for ::Namespace::Template<T> template decl.
> auto param_type_decl_matcher = classTemplateDecl(
> hasName("Template"),
> hasParent(namespaceDecl(hasName("Namespace"))),
> has(templateTypeParmDecl(hasName("T"))));
>
> // hasDeclaration / qualType-flavour.
> EXPECT_TRUE(matches(input, parmVarDecl(
> hasName("param"),
> hasType(qualType(hasDeclaration(decl(param_type_decl_matcher)))))));
> }
>
> I was a little bit surprised that ElaboratedType is handled when going via
> qualType, but not when matching the type directly - the test code below (an
> extension of the unit test proposed above) fails to compile. Is this
> expected (for this CL? for long-term?)?
>
> // hasDeclaration / elaboratedType-flavour.
> EXPECT_TRUE(matches(input, parmVarDecl(
> hasName("param"),
>
> hasType(elaboratedType(hasDeclaration(decl(param_type_decl_matcher)))))));
>
Added unit test and added ElaboratedType to the list of allowed types for
hasDeclaration.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27104
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
