arichardson added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:69
- void verifyFormat(llvm::StringRef Expected, llvm::StringRef Code,
- const FormatStyle &Style = getLLVMStyle()) {
+ void _verifyFormat(const char *File, int Line, llvm::StringRef Expected,
+ llvm::StringRef Code,
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> Nit: I'm unsure of the convention for using _ at the front of functions, I'm
> not a major fan others might have other opinions
I just picked something that's different and makes it easy to change the calls
without reformatting everything. Also happy to use `verifyImpl` or something
like that?
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:72
+ const FormatStyle &Style = getLLVMStyle()) {
+ ScopedTrace t(File, Line, ::testing::Message() << Code.str());
EXPECT_EQ(Expected.str(), format(Expected, Style))
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> could you add an example as to what the output would look like?
>
> I think we could pass the File and line number to the EXPECT_EQ in the `<<`
> message
This is what it looks like now:
```
/Users/alex/cheri/upstream-llvm-project/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:81:
Failure
Expected: Expected.str()
Which is: "void f() { MACRO(LIST(uint64_t) *a); }"
To be equal to: format(test::messUp(Code), ObjCStyle)
Which is: "void f() { MACRO(LIST(uint64_t) * a); }"
Google Test trace:
/Users/alex/cheri/upstream-llvm-project/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:7859:
void f() { MACRO(LIST(uint64_t) *a); }
```
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86926/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86926
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
