================
Comment at: unittests/AST/SourceLocationTest.cpp:95
@@ +94,3 @@
+ if (!Node) {
+ setResult("Could not find node with id \"" + ExpectId + "\"");
+ Verified = false;
----------------
Manuel Klimek wrote:
> 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" :)
It doesn't have the full stack trace. And actually it's more than just the line
number that is wrong; it doesn't include the code being tested either. So I
have left it as is (with a small change to how the result is set).
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D72
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
