================
@@ -1361,6 +1361,16 @@ int endPreamble;
Source.range("inactive3"), Source.range("inactive4"))));
}
+TEST(ClangdServer, BackgroundIndexPriorityPropagatesToIndexingThreads) {
+ auto Opts = ClangdServer::optsForTest();
+ for (auto Priority :
+ {llvm::ThreadPriority::Background, llvm::ThreadPriority::Low,
+ llvm::ThreadPriority::Default}) {
+ Opts.BackgroundIndexPriority = Priority;
+ EXPECT_EQ(BackgroundIndex::Options(Opts).IndexingPriority, Priority);
+ }
+}
----------------
ArcsinX wrote:
This test verifies that the newly introduced operator correctly sets the
`IndexingPriority` field, but it does not verify that the original issue (where
`BackgroundIndexPriority` was not being passed to the `BackgroundIndex`
options) has actually been fixed.
Ideally, the test should look something like this: a `ClangdServer` object is
created, and then we verify that the `BackgroundIndex` has actually got correct
`IndexingPriority` based on `BackgroundIndexPriority` value.
I am not sure if the current interfaces allow to this check, but the test as it
stands for now does not seem to be related to `ClangdServer` at all.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/212700
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
