sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp:1194-1201
if (Params.positions.size() != 1) {
elog("{0} positions provided to SelectionRange. Supports exactly one "
"position.",
Params.positions.size());
return Reply(llvm::make_error<LSPError>(
"SelectionRange supports exactly one position",
ErrorCode::InvalidRequest));
----------------
usaxena95 wrote:
> You can remove this check now.
Oops!
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticSelection.cpp:74
+ SelectionRange *Tail = &Head;
+ for (auto &Range : llvm::makeArrayRef(Ranges).drop_front()) {
+ Tail->parent = std::make_unique<SelectionRange>();
----------------
usaxena95 wrote:
> nit:`Range` can be made a `const` ref.
Oops, fixed to actually move.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SemanticSelectionTests.cpp:175
- auto Ranges = runSemanticRanges(Server, FooCpp, SourceAnnotations.point());
+ auto Ranges = runSemanticRanges(Server, FooCpp, SourceAnnotations.points());
ASSERT_TRUE(bool(Ranges))
----------------
usaxena95 wrote:
> I think it would be better to name the two points in the test and explicitly
> specify their order in the request (instead of relying on
> `SourceAnnotations.points()`).
> Annotations::points doesn't guarantee order in its contract. Even if the
> current implementation does, it would be better to be explicit and not rely
> on it.
Good point. I updated the documentation on Annotations instead to make this
guarantee, this was always the intent.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76741/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D76741
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
