malaperle added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clangd/index/SymbolCollector.cpp:158
+ translationUnitDecl(), namespaceDecl(), linkageSpecDecl(), recordDecl(),
+ enumDecl(), objcProtocolDecl(), objcInterfaceDecl(), objcCategoryDecl(),
+ objcCategoryImplDecl(), objcImplementationDecl()));
----------------
ioeric wrote:
> (Disclaimer: I don't know obj-c...)
>
> It seems that some objc contexts here are good for global code completion. If
> we want to support objc symbols, it might also make sense to properly set
> `SupportGlobalCompletion` for them.
Sounds good. Maybe it would be OK to do this in another (small) patch? I also
know next to nothing about obj-c :)
================
Comment at: unittests/clangd/CodeCompleteTests.cpp:741
+TEST(CompletionTest, Enums) {
+ EXPECT_THAT(completions(R"cpp(
----------------
ioeric wrote:
> It's not clear to me what the following tests (`Enums`, `AnonymousNamespace`,
> `InMainFile`) are testing. Do they test code completion or symbol collector?
> If these test symbol collection, they should be moved int
> SymbolCollectorTest.cpp
They are testing that code completion works as intended regardless of how
symbol collector is implemented. It's similar to our previous discussion in
D44882 about "black box testing". I can remove them but it seems odd to me to
not have code completion level tests for all cases because we assume that it
will behave a certain way at the symbol collection and querying levels.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44954
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
