[PATCH] D28189: Extend documentation of how to test clang-tidy checks.

[James Dennett via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jdennett marked 2 inline comments as done.
jdennett added a comment.

Thanks for the review.  I've address your comments, and will check over the (presumed-final) diff before submitting.



================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/index.rst:558
+typically the basic `CHECK` forms (`CHECK-MESSAGES` and `CHECK-FIXES`)
+are sufficient for matcher tests.  Note that the `FileCheck`
+documentation mostly assumes the default prefix (`CHECK`), and hence
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> I'm not sure the term "matcher tests" is used anywhere else in our documentation. And it doesn't seem obvious to me either (if it refers to AST matchers, then it's just an implementation detail of clang-tidy checks, if it refers to the check patterns, then it's not a commonly used term for those either). I don't know what would be a good short replacement, maybe "clang-tidy lit tests" or just "clang-tidy tests".
I went with clang-tidy tests.  (The "matcher test" references are because I was thinking about some new matchers such as `argumentsAre(arg1, ..., argn)` at the same time, and didn't manage to do a complete context switch when working on these docs.  Thanks for catching that.)


https://reviews.llvm.org/D28189