ilya-biryukov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: unittests/clangd/CodeCompleteTests.cpp:1770
+ // Check the completions call does not crash.
+ completions(R"cpp(
+ struct Base {
----------------
ioeric wrote:
> ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > Was wondering if testing for crashes LG this way, or adding more assertions
> > might make sense too
> Hmm, I think this is okay, but I'd probably do some sanity check on the
> results, just to make it look less odd ;)
Exactly my feelings: this looks odd.
However, couldn't come up with a decent sanity check at this point.
The reason is: we don't store enough information to tell override completion
from non-override ones.
It means I can assert something like `Not(Contains(Labelled("~Base()
override")))`, but lots of broken outputs can still make the test pass, e.g.:
- `void ~Base() override`
- `~Derived() override`
- ...
Will probably keep as this and think how to factor out overriden completions
from the results better...
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51598
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
