[PATCH] D43522: [clang-format] New API guessLanguage()

[Ben Hamilton via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

benhamilton added inline comments.


================
Comment at: cfe/trunk/lib/Format/Format.cpp:2298
+FormatStyle::LanguageKind guessLanguage(StringRef FileName, StringRef Code) {
+  FormatStyle::LanguageKind result = getLanguageByFileName(FileName);
+  if (result == FormatStyle::LK_Cpp) {
----------------
djasper wrote:
> Here and in several other places: Variables should be named with upper camel case (https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#name-types-functions-variables-and-enumerators-properly).
Thanks, will send a follow-up.


================
Comment at: cfe/trunk/lib/Format/Format.cpp:2308
+      Guesser.process();
+      if (Guesser.isObjC()) {
+        result = FormatStyle::LK_ObjC;
----------------
djasper wrote:
> In LLVM, we generally don't add braces for single statement ifs.
Mmmm.. is this a hard requirement? I've personally been bitten so many times by adding statements after missing braces, I'd rather add them unless they're required to not be there by the style guide.


================
Comment at: cfe/trunk/lib/Format/Format.cpp:2309
+      if (Guesser.isObjC()) {
+        result = FormatStyle::LK_ObjC;
+      }
----------------
djasper wrote:
> Why not just return here?
I don't like early returns in case an else sneaks in later:

https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#don-t-use-else-after-a-return


================
Comment at: cfe/trunk/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:11955
 
+struct GuessLanguageTestCase {
+  const char *const FileName;
----------------
djasper wrote:
> IMO, this is a bit over-engineered. IIUC, this only calls a single free standing function with two different parameters and expects a certain result. You don't need this struct, a test fixture or parameterized tests for that. Just write:
> 
>   TEST(GuessLanguageTest, FileAndCode) {
>     EXPECT_EQ(guessLanguage("foo.cc", ""), FormatStyle::LK_Cpp);
>     EXPECT_EQ(guessLanguage("foo.m", ""), FormatStyle::LK_ObjC);
>     ...
>   }
> 
> Yes, you'd be duplicating the "EXPECT_EQ" and "guessLanguage", but I think that's actually good here. It makes the tests intuitively readable.
I hear you. I much prefer it when a single test tests a single issue, so failures are isolated to the actual change:

https://elgaard.blog/2011/02/06/multiple-asserts-in-a-single-unit-test-method/

If this isn't a hard requirement, I'd like to keep this the way it is.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D43522