jvikstrom added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SemanticHighlightingTests.cpp:281
+ )cpp"}},
+ {{5},
+ {
----------------
hokein wrote:
> so the empty lines are stored separately, which is not easy to figure out
> from the testing code snippet. I think we should make the empty lines more
> obvious in the code snippet (maybe use an `Empty` annotations?) , and
> explicitly verify the empty lines.
>
> What do you think refining the test like below, just annotate the diff
> tokens? I find it is easy to spot the diff tokens.
>
> ```
> struct Testcase {
> Code Before;
> Code After;
> };
>
> std::vector<TestCase> cases = {
> {
> R"cpp(
> int a;
> int b;
> int c;
> )cpp",
> R"cpp(
> int a;
> $Empty[[]] // int b
> int $Variable[[C]];
> )cpp"
> }
> }
>
> oldHighlightings = getSemanticHighlightings(OldAST);
> newHighlightings = getSemanticHighlightings(NewAST);
> diffHighlightings = diff...;
> // verify the diffHighlightings has the expected empty lines ("Empty"
> annotations).
> // verify the diffHighlightings has the expected highlightings (the regular
> annotations);
> ```
>
Moved everything into the checkDiffedHighlights as well.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64475/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64475
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
