I double checked and cannot reproduce, nor can I find the test breakage. I
think at the time the conditional-in-parameter-initializer test case failed
without the change. If all tests pass, more power to you :-)
Martin Probst schrieb am Di., 12. Juli 2016 um 07:32 Uhr:
> What do you mean by othe
What do you mean by other tests? On my machine, reverting this change
breaks one of the tests in FormatTestJS.Conditional.
Martin
Daniel Jasper schrieb am Di., 12. Juli 2016 um
06:03 Uhr:
> So, turns out top-level conditionals are actually used somewhat
> frequently. Can I undo this change? It
So, turns out top-level conditionals are actually used somewhat frequently.
Can I undo this change? It doesn't break any other tests. Do you have other
tests that I should run against?
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Martin Probst wrote:
> Yes, test breakage. The problem was that with the chan
Yes, test breakage. The problem was that with the change fields and
interfaces would still get incorrectly formatted (see also the comment on
the diff). Will include it in the commit message next time.
Daniel Jasper schrieb am Fr., 24. Juni 2016 um
14:43 Uhr:
> The patch description seems wrong
The patch description seems wrong as this doesn't fix a build breakage
AFAICT. Do you mean a test failure? If so, it would be helpful to #include
what's actually changing (before/after or calling out the failing test case
or something).
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Martin Probst via cfe-commi
Author: mprobst
Date: Fri Jun 24 12:45:13 2016
New Revision: 273694
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=273694&view=rev
Log:
clang-format: [JS] Fix build breakage.
Checking Line.MustBeDeclaration does actually break the field and param
initializer use case.
Modified:
cfe/trunk/lib/
