sammccall marked an inline comment as done. sammccall added inline comments.
================ Comment at: unittests/clangd/QualityTests.cpp:1 //===-- SourceCodeTests.cpp ------------------------------------*- C++ -*-===// // ---------------- ioeric wrote: > sammccall wrote: > > ioeric wrote: > > > Could you also add a test case for code completion? > > The code completion scoring is tested in SymbolRelevanceSignalsSanity: file > > scope is boosted compared to default when the query is code-complete, but > > not when it's generic. > > > > What kind of test do you mean? > I was thinking a test case that covers the changes in CodeComplete.cpp e.g. > check that Relevance and Quality play well together, and locals/members are > boosted? Would that make sense? Actually one of the purposes of pulling out the `Quality` module is to stop writing such tests :-) They're fragile because ranking depends on many factors, e.g. at the moment you can't construct a completion candidate with a different scope that won't also get a different sema priority, so it's not clear why a test is passing/failing. And for every signal, you need a test in code complete, and in workspace symbols... It *would* be useful to have a smoke test in CodeCompletion to make sure we're using those scores. Maybe it would make sense to turn ReferencesAffectRanking or so into that? Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D47762 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
