Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/StaticAnalyzer/RegisterCustomCheckersTest.cpp:85
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+// Unfulfilled dependency
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
----------------
How about `Unsatisfied checker dependency.`?
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/StaticAnalyzer/RegisterCustomCheckersTest.cpp:92
+ BugReporter &BR) const {
+ assert(false && "This checker should not be registered.");
+ BR.EmitBasicReport(D, this, "Prerequisite", categories::LogicError,
----------------
Isn't this overkill? The test above test only the output, but don't outright
cause a crash.
================
Comment at:
clang/unittests/StaticAnalyzer/RegisterCustomCheckersTest.cpp:111-112
+ BugReporter &BR) const {
+ assert(false &&
+ "This checker should not be registered due to missing dependency.");
+ BR.EmitBasicReport(D, this, "Dependent", categories::LogicError,
----------------
Same thing.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/StaticAnalyzer/RegisterCustomCheckersTest.cpp:143
+ std::string Diags;
+ EXPECT_TRUE(runCheckerOnCode<addDependentChecker>("void f() {;}", Diags));
+}
----------------
I don't think this is checking what you're looking for -- the test should be
whether `Diag` is an empty string, while `runCheckerOnCode` returns true when
the tool (the static analyzer, in this case) terminates successfully, even if
it doesn't work the way we expect it to.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75842/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75842
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
