[clang-tools-extra] r215839 - First version of a clang-rename tool.

[Manuel Klimek]

It does use lit tests, but lit tests are not the answer for everything;
they are very good for integration style tests (like checking that a rename
actually renamed something), but very bad for testing a library.

Note that we do want to migrate (most of) clang-format's tests to lit tests
(because most of them are integration tests), but that's a different topic.

On Sun Aug 17 2014 at 10:07:14 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola
> <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Aug 17, 2014, at 14:00, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Author: klimek
> >> Date: Sun Aug 17 13:00:59 2014
> >> New Revision: 215839
> >>
> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=215839&view=rev
> >> Log:
> >> First version of a clang-rename tool.
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >> Note that this code is still grossly under-tested - the next steps will
> >> be to add significantly better test coverage.
> >>
> >
> > Please use lit tests. Filecheck is fine, a -verify would be awesome.
> Please just stay away from clang-format like mega gtest files.
>
> Curious - what's the problem with clang-format's testing?
>
> - David
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140817/981b16d7/attachment.html>