================
Comment at: unittests/AST/SourceLocationTest.cpp:95
@@ +94,3 @@
+ if (!Node) {
+ setResult("Could not find node with id \"" + ExpectId + "\"");
+ Verified = false;
----------------
Manuel Klimek wrote:
> Philip Craig wrote:
> > Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > > 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(...).
> > Doing that means that failures no longer print the line number of the test
> > case that is failing, but in most cases it will be the test case that needs
> > fixing, not the run() function. You still have the test name, but it's
> > easier to navigate to a line number. If that is acceptable, then this
> > certainly simplifies things a lot.
> Oh, I thought gtest prints the full stack trace at the point of the exception
> failure. .. If it doesn't, I'm happy with your solution.
And when I say "exception" I mean "expectation" :)
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D72
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
