[PATCH] D83501: [clangd][ObjC] Improve xrefs for protocols and classes

[David Goldman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

dgoldman added a comment.

In D83501#2173534 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83501#2173534>, @sammccall wrote:

> (Sorry this has been pending a while - I think it's basically there. Only things we really need to address to land this is have a consistent view of what the canonical decl is for the no- at interface case, and avoid too much duplication of mechanisms in the tests)


No problem, thanks for the review



================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/FindTargetTests.cpp:696
+  )cpp";
+  EXPECT_DECLS("ObjCImplementationDecl", "@interface Implicit");
+
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> Hmm, do we want to use the @interface or @implementation for this case? The interface is implicit but probably still has a valid location.
> Currently symbolcollector and findtarget do different things...
Good catch, don't think this is a common case but yeah I think the impl makes more sense then. swapped over


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SymbolCollectorTests.cpp:614
+
+TEST_F(SymbolCollectorTest, ObjCClassExtensions) {
+  Annotations Header(R"(
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> dgoldman wrote:
> > Here's the ClassExtension that I was talking about.
> > 
> > Ideally we can map each
> > 
> > `Cat ()` --> `@implementation Cat` like I did in XRefs
> > 
> > But as you said the `Cat ()` could be in a different file and I think it has a different USR.
> > 
> > See also https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ProgrammingWithObjectiveC/CustomizingExistingClasses/CustomizingExistingClasses.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011210-CH6-SW3
> > Ideally we can map each
> > Cat () --> @implementation Cat like I did in XRefs
> 
> I'm not sure there's anything that would ideally be done differently here.
> The logic in xrefs is a special "go-to-definition" action - there's some ambiguity about what's being *targeted* by the user. But here there's no targeting going on, and there's no ambiguity about what's being *declared*.
> 
> The thing to test would be that we're emitting *refs* from `@interface [[Cat]] ()` to catdecl.
> 
Hmm, it looks like at the moment it either shares the same QName or doesn't have one. This might be good to look into a follow up patch?


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/XRefsTests.cpp:803
+  };
+  for (const char *Test : Tests) {
+    Annotations T(Test);
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> this seems to be copy/pasted from the test above.
> Is there a reason this can't be part of the test above?
I could merge them but I figured it would be better to separate tests with multi def/decls from those with just one. WDYT?


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/XRefsTests.cpp:838
+
+TEST(LocateSymbol, MultipleDeclsWithSameDefinition) {
+  // Ranges in tests:
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> and again here
> 
> Desire to split these tables up into named tests is something we want to address somehow, but we don't have a good answer right now and it's important for maintenance that the logic/annotation conventions don't diverge across different tests that could be the same.
This one is split because you can't annotate one symbol with multiple annotations. I can instead make this a regular non generic test like the following, WDYT?

      @interface $interfacedecl[[Cat]]
      @end
      @interface $classextensiondecl[[Ca^t]] ()
      - (void)meow;
      @end
      @implementation $implementationdecl[[Cat]]
      - (void)meow {}
      @end


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D83501/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D83501