[PATCH] D95231: [clangd] Selection handles CXXBaseSpecifier

[Nathan James via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

njames93 marked 2 inline comments as done.
njames93 added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SelectionTests.cpp:272-283
+          R"cpp(
+            struct Foo {};
+            struct Bar : [[private Fo^o]] {};
+          )cpp",
+          "CXXBaseSpecifier",
+      },
+      {
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> njames93 wrote:
> > sammccall wrote:
> > > njames93 wrote:
> > > > Is this good behaviour, or should Foo selection resolve as a RecordTypeLoc, That is the behaviour previously observed for these 2 cases. And instead have CXXBaseSpecifier as its parent selection?
> > > Yes, this should be a typeloc with the CXXBaseSpecifier as its parent, unless there's a really compelling reason to make an exception.
> > > 
> > > Two main reasons:
> > >  - it matches RecursiveASTVisitor's idea of the tree shape, which people mostly understand. If we diverge, it'll be a special case we need to remember and so potentially a source of bugs.
> > >  - This allows code that handles types generically to work with fewer special cases.
> > >   (I do like the FindTarget change though - it seems reasonable to allow go-to-def on e.g. the `public` keyword)
> > >   It still preserves flexibility if we want to handle types as base-specifiers specially (we can examine the parent)
> > OK, funnily enough that change to find target was to fix renaming when the recordtypeloc was removed from the selection. That change will be redundant if i fix that, but do you still want it in here? 
> Up to you, but I'd lean towards keeping it and adding a FindTarget test for `struct S : ^private T` or so, which is the visible change.
I think I should remove it, then add it back in a follow up. It was needed to fix a issue in here that was then resolved in here.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D95231/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D95231