ioeric added inline comments.
================ Comment at: unittests/clangd/QualityTests.cpp:1 //===-- SourceCodeTests.cpp ------------------------------------*- C++ -*-===// // ---------------- sammccall wrote: > ioeric wrote: > > sammccall wrote: > > > ioeric wrote: > > > > Could you also add a test case for code completion? > > > The code completion scoring is tested in SymbolRelevanceSignalsSanity: > > > file scope is boosted compared to default when the query is > > > code-complete, but not when it's generic. > > > > > > What kind of test do you mean? > > I was thinking a test case that covers the changes in CodeComplete.cpp e.g. > > check that Relevance and Quality play well together, and locals/members are > > boosted? Would that make sense? > Actually one of the purposes of pulling out the `Quality` module is to stop > writing such tests :-) > They're fragile because ranking depends on many factors, e.g. at the moment > you can't construct a completion candidate with a different scope that won't > also get a different sema priority, so it's not clear why a test is > passing/failing. > And for every signal, you need a test in code complete, and in workspace > symbols... > > It *would* be useful to have a smoke test in CodeCompletion to make sure > we're using those scores. Maybe it would make sense to turn > ReferencesAffectRanking or so into that? That makes sense. A smoke test in code completion sounds good. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D47762 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
