================
Comment at: unittests/AST/SourceLocationTest.cpp:29
@@ +28,3 @@
+public:
+ MatchVerifier() : ExpectId("") {}
+
----------------
Philip Craig wrote:
> Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > ExpectId seems completely unused now...
> Yes, I left it there in case a test needs to specify its own bind within the
> matcher. I can delete it for now if you think that's better.
I would delete it. I dislike unused things that "might" be used in the future,
as more often than not they end up staying unused.
================
Comment at: unittests/AST/SourceLocationTest.cpp:95
@@ +94,3 @@
+ if (!Node) {
+ setResult("Could not find node with id \"" + ExpectId + "\"");
+ Verified = false;
----------------
Philip Craig wrote:
> Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > Can we instead use EXPECT(...) to fail the test? That way googletest would
> > take care of keeping track of errors etc.
> This result is returned at the end of match(), which is used in an EXPECT(),
> so it will keep track of the error.
I'm aware - my point is that all the result tracking could be deleted and
replaced with one EXPECT here, which would lead to simpler code overall.
Instead of EXPECT_TRUE(match(...)), the test could call
Verifier.expectMatch(...).
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D72
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
