malaperle added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp:246
+
+ C.reply(json::ary(Highlights->Value));
+}
----------------
I get a test failure here because there is an assertion that the Expected<>
needs to be checked. I can't really think of any failure case right now where
we wouldn't just return an empty array of highlights. But I think it's better
for consistency and future-proofing to keep the Expected<>.
I think you can just do like in onRename for now
if (!Highlights) {
C.replyError(ErrorCode::InternalError,
llvm::toString(Highlights.takeError()));
return;
}
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38425
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
