================
@@ -16,12 +16,36 @@ std::string Render(std::vector<DiagnosticDetail> details) {
} // namespace
TEST_F(ErrorDisplayTest, RenderStatus) {
- DiagnosticDetail::SourceLocation inline_loc;
- inline_loc.in_user_input = true;
{
+ DiagnosticDetail::SourceLocation inline_loc;
+ inline_loc.in_user_input = true;
std::string result =
Render({DiagnosticDetail{inline_loc, eSeverityError, "foo", ""}});
ASSERT_TRUE(StringRef(result).contains("error:"));
ASSERT_TRUE(StringRef(result).contains("foo"));
}
+
+ {
+ DiagnosticDetail::SourceLocation loc1 = {FileSpec{"a.c"}, 13, 11, 0,
+ false, true};
+ DiagnosticDetail::SourceLocation loc2 = {FileSpec{"a.c"}, 13, 13, 0,
+ false, true};
+ std::string result =
+ Render({DiagnosticDetail{loc1, eSeverityError, "1", "1"},
+ DiagnosticDetail{loc1, eSeverityError, "2", "3"},
+ DiagnosticDetail{loc2, eSeverityError, "3", "3"}});
+ ASSERT_TRUE(StringRef(result).contains("error: 1"));
+ ASSERT_TRUE(StringRef(result).contains("error: 3"));
+ ASSERT_TRUE(StringRef(result).contains("error: 2"));
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
I don't understand what this test is testing. Also, this could definitely
benefit from either inline comments or named variables. I had to look at the
`DiagnosticDetail` definition to remember what the 3rd and 4th argument are
(`message` and `rendered` respectively.
This patch sorts stuff but the test doesn't check that. It just checks that
everything is present, which thread me off at first. Would it make more sense
to have `loc2` between the two `loc1`s and then check that they're printed in
order?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112451
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
