ioeric accepted this revision.
ioeric added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-doc/bc-linkage.cpp:106
+// CHECK-0-NEXT: <RecordBlock NumWords=107 BlockCodeSize=4>
+// CHECK-0-NEXT: <USR abbrevid=4 op0=20 op1=201 op2=179 op3=183 op4=26
op5=205 op6=216 op7=76 op8=91 op9=179 op10=32 op11=211 op12=78 op13=151
op14=103 op15=119 op16=21 op17=205 op18=179 op19=234 op20=50/>
+// CHECK-0-NEXT: <Name abbrevid=5 op0=10/> blob data = 'InnerClass'
----------------
juliehockett wrote:
> ioeric wrote:
> > I'm still a bit concerned about hardcoding a lot of USRs in tests. They are
> > not interpretable and generally not interesting for testing. Also as they
> > are auto-generated, it's hard to tell whether they are actually the
> > desired USRs. I'm concerned because the maintenance is getting higher as
> > number of tests grows - everyone changing USR semantics in the future has
> > to know to regenerate clang-doc tests, this can be annoying and potentially
> > unmanageable when a small change in clang USR requires changes to many test
> > files in clang-tools-extra :( Comparing to the value it brings to test USRs
> > in all tests, I'd still suggest simply matching them with a `{{.*}}`and
> > only test USRs in few tests where you are actually interested in them.
> Okay, I updated it to only check the length -- is that reasonable?
Thanks!
FWIW, I wouldn't check the length either as it seems to add too much overhead;
I think checking length/USR in one test should get it well covered.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48341
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
