[PATCH] D85962: [SyntaxTree] Create annotations infrastructure and apply it in expression tests.

[Eduardo Caldas via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

eduucaldas added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/TreeTestBase.cpp:199
+  auto AnnotatedRanges = AnnotatedCode.ranges();
+  assert(AnnotatedRanges.size() == TreeDumps.size());
+  for (auto i = 0ul; i < AnnotatedRanges.size(); i++) {
----------------
eduucaldas wrote:
> gribozavr2 wrote:
> > ASSERT_EQ I think would be better.
> `ASSERT_EQ` is a macro that returns void, so we cannot use it here.
> 
> However that brings another question.
> Right now we have methods `treeDumpEqual*` that return `AssertionResult`s and we use them in our tests in the following way: `EXPECT_TRUE(treeDumpEqual*...)`.
> It seems to me that we should instead perform any assertion inside `treeDumpEqual*`, and then just call it directly in the test.
> 
> WDYT?  I case you agree we can perform this change in another patch.
We need the `EXPECT_TRUE` at the test site to get information about in which line number we failed


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D85962/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D85962