sammccall added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/Rename.h:95 + /// \p getBest, exposing for testing only. + static MatchType match(llvm::ArrayRef<Range> LHS, llvm::ArrayRef<Range> RHS); + ---------------- hokein wrote: > sammccall wrote: > > Oops, forgot this... > > I think the public API isn't quite right here - exposing parts for testing > > is fine, but the classification itself isn't fine grained enough I think. > > (Too easy to write a test that "passes" but the actual mapping found isn't > > the right one). > > > > And the class structure wrapping a LangOpts ref seems like a detail that > > can be hidden. > > > > I'd like to see: > > - a function that returns the lexed ranges from a StringRef/LangOpts > > - a function that constructs the mapping given two sequences of ranges > > (like `getMappedRanges(ArrayRef<Range>, ArrayRef<Range>) -> vector<Range>` > > - a function that ties these together to the data structures we care about > > (i.e. taking Code + identifier + LangOpts + ArrayRef<Ref> or so) > > > > then you can unit test the first and second and smoke test the third. > > > > Tests like > > > > ``` > > Indexed = "int [[x]] = 0; void foo(int x);"; > > Draft = "double [[x]] = 0; void foo(double x);"; > > verifyRenameMatches(Indexed, Draft); > > ``` > > a function that returns the lexed ranges from a StringRef/LangOpts > > There is an existing function `collectIdentifierRanges` in SourceCode.cpp, > and it has been unittested. > > > > a function that constructs the mapping given two sequences of ranges (like > > getMappedRanges(ArrayRef<Range>, ArrayRef<Range>) -> vector<Range> > > a function that ties these together to the data structures we care about > > (i.e. taking Code + identifier + LangOpts + ArrayRef<Ref> or so) > > sure, I think it is sufficient to test the second one, since the second one > is a simple wrapper of the `getMappedRanges`. > sure, I think it is sufficient to test the second one, since the second one > is a simple wrapper of the `getMappedRanges`. Did you mean "sufficient to test the first one"? Testing the second one is certainly sufficient, but tests more than it needs to (particularly the lexing bits again). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70594/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70594 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
