Manikishan added a comment. In D64695#1590948 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64695#1590948>, @Manikishan wrote:
> In D64695#1589818 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64695#1589818>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > In D64695#1589740 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64695#1589740>, @Manikishan > > wrote: > > > > > In D64695#1589508 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64695#1589508>, @lebedev.ri > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Is there sufficient test coverage as to what happens if `SortPriority` > > > > is not set? > > > > > > > > > If SortPriority is not set, the Includes will be grouped without sorting, > > > > > > Let me rephrase - for the exiting `.clang-format`s, that don't currently > > specify `SortPriority`, > > this introduction of `SortPriority` should not change the header handling. > > Is that the case, and if so is there sufficient test coverage for that? > > > I got your idea now. > No, there is no test coverage for that case, and with the current patch they > have to add SortPriority. > To avoid this shall I set SortPriority as Priority as default if it is not > defined? I think that will fix the issue. any reviews on it ? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64695/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64695 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
