[PATCH] D137252: [include-cleaner] Testing helpers for ast walking

[Sam McCall via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

sammccall added a comment.

Agree there are readability concerns here (long macro names, out-of-line kinds, complicated macros).

My suggestion would be to treat RefKind as an optional feature. Most tests would just assert the set of marked locations and test the cases where kind is interesting separately.

  string markReferences(string TargetCode, string ReferencingCode, bool WithKind);
  // markReferences("int x;", "int y = ^x;", false) => "int ^x;"
  // markReferences("int x;", "int y = ^x;", true) => "int $explicit^x;"
  
  #define EXPECT_REFS(T, R) EXPECT_EQ(T, markReferences(Annotations(T).code(), R, false)) << R;
  #define EXPECT_TYPED_REFS(T, R) EXPECT_EQ(T, markReferences(Annotations(T).code(), R, true)) << R;



================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/include-cleaner/unittests/WalkASTTest.cpp:248
   // decls.
-  testWalk(R"cpp(
+  EXPECT_EXPLICIT_REFERENCES(R"cpp(
       template <typename> struct S {};
----------------
It's probably OK to use raw-strings inside macros these days...
Some versions of GCC had a problem with it, but the c++17 bump may have taken care of those.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D137252/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D137252