klimek added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Refactor/LocalRename/Field.cpp:4
+class Baz {
+ int /*range=*/Foo; // CHECK: symbol [[@LINE]]:17 -> [[@LINE]]:20
+public:
----------------
arphaman wrote:
> klimek wrote:
> > arphaman wrote:
> > > klimek wrote:
> > > > Does this just test the selection?
> > > No, this is the moved `clang-rename/Field.cpp` test that tests
> > > local-rename. I will move the other tests when this patch is accepted.
> > Ok, then I find this test really hard to read - where does it check what
> > the symbol was replaced with?
> I thought I should check for occurrences, but you're right, it's probably
> better to always check the source replacements (we can introduce options that
> apply non-default occurrences in the future which would allow us to check
> replacements for occurrences in comments).
>
> Would something like `//CHECK: "newName" [[@LINE]]:24 -> [[]]:27` work when
> checking for replacements?
Yep, I think that'd be better.
Or we could just apply the replacement and check on the replaced code? (I think
that's what we do in fixits for clang and clang-tidy)
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36574
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
