jdemeule added inline comments.
================
Comment at: unittests/clang-tidy/ClangTidyTest.h:145
+
+ if (Options.FormatStyle) {
+ llvm::Expected<format::FormatStyle> Style = format::getStyle(
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> I wonder whether it's better to use lit for the tests that require formatting
> than to expand clang-tidy unit test utilities with runCheckAndFormatOnCode?
> What was the reason to use unit tests in this patch as opposed to lit tests?
Indeed, that a good question.
Personally, I found unit test easier to launch and debug than lit test and I
notice that it is not possible to made a unit test which react the same way as
clang-tidy.
When I wrote this test, I want it to react as in clang-tidy and for this I try
to call `cleanupAroundReplacements` in the test.
Adding formatting was more a side effect to have some sustainable and
comprehensive way to write test.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43500
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
