karepker marked 2 inline comments as done and an inline comment as not done.
karepker added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/google/AvoidUnderscoreInGoogletestNameCheck.cpp:27
+static bool isGoogletestTestMacro(StringRef MacroName) {
+ static const llvm::StringSet<> MacroNames = {"TEST", "TEST_F", "TEST_P",
+ "TYPED_TEST", "TYPED_TEST_P"};
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> Is there value in making the list of macros and option?, I've worked with
> other unit testing packages (some inhouse) that use the same format as google
> test, but don't use TEST() itself
>
> e.g. (to name a few)
>
> ```
> TEST_CASE(testclass, testname)
> BOOST_TEST(statement, floating_point_comparison_manipulation);
> BOOST_DATA_TEST_CASE(test_case_name, dataset)
> BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE( test_case2, F )
> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( test_case3 )
>
> ```
>
> too many for you to capture in the checker...but a nice addition for those
> who use alternative frameworks and would like to benefit from similar "no
> underscore" naming conventions
>
I'm not familiar with, e.g. the boost testing framework, so I don't know how
closely it mirrors Googletest, but I think my preference would be to have a
separate check for other testing frameworks.
While the testing frameworks might share some high-level similarities, there
could be some different corner cases which would make having a separate check
worth it as opposed to making this code more complex by trying to generalize it
for several cases. At the very least, a different diagnostic message would be
required. Factoring out similar functionality into some utility functions might
reduce some of the boilerplate from implementing separate checks.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56424/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56424
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
