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

Manuel Klimek klimek at google.com
Tue Aug 19 18:24:42 PDT 2014


On Mon Aug 18 2014 at 8:16:30 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon Aug 18 2014 at 11:20:14 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun Aug 17 2014 at 11:43:39 PM Rafael EspĂ­ndola <
>>>> rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, that was the topic of my reply :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> When gtest is appropriate, do use it. My request was just to not build
>>>>> another large test set that we want to migrate in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then we agree! :) Please give specific feedback if you see a gtest test
>>>> that you think should be a lit test!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In this case, it seems like you should write a unit test for the routine
>>> that uses the offsets to actually do the renaming. Then you can write this
>>> test as a lit test that checks that the relevant things get renamed.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the routine that finds what is under the cursor is unit tested, the
>> rename is lit tested. I'm not sure how that differs from what you're
>> describing.
>>
>
> Sorry, didn't see the lit test there; not sure why. Btw, is there a reason
> that the RUN lines are at the bottom?
>

Nope, I somehow didn't consciously realize that :P I'll fix it when
resubmitting the patch (was rolled back because I'm too stupid to figure
out how to read buildbots)


>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Also, why are we committing code that is "grossly under-tested" in the
>>> first place? (sorry if this was discussed in another thread)
>>>
>>
>> a) it was a little tongue-in-cheek from my side (mainly meaning that I
>> think we should focus the next steps on the testing first, before adding
>> more features)
>> b) I'm generally fine with incremental development in-tree (especially
>> for leaf projects)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Sean Silva
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Rafael
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140820/67f6cc0f/attachment.html>


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list