[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [clang][CodeComplete] skip explicit obj param in SignatureHelp (PR #146649)

[Nathan Ridge via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -4386,12 +4430,24 @@ TEST(CompletionTest, SkipExplicitObjectParameter) {
 
   MockFS FS;
   auto Inputs = TU.inputs(FS);
-  auto Result = codeComplete(testPath(TU.Filename), Code.point(),
-                             Preamble.get(), Inputs, Opts);
-
-  EXPECT_THAT(Result.Completions,
-              ElementsAre(AllOf(named("foo"), signature("(int arg)"),
-                                snippetSuffix("(${1:int arg})"))));
+  {
+    auto Result = codeComplete(testPath(TU.Filename), Code.point("c1"),
+                               Preamble.get(), Inputs, Opts);
+
+    EXPECT_THAT(Result.Completions,
+                UnorderedElementsAre(AllOf(named("foo"), signature("(int arg)"),
+                                           snippetSuffix("(${1:int arg})")),
+                                     AllOf(named("bar"), signature("(int arg)"),
+                                           snippetSuffix("(${1:int arg})"))));
+  }
+  {
+    auto Result = codeComplete(testPath(TU.Filename), Code.point("c2"),
+                               Preamble.get(), Inputs, Opts);
+    // TODO: snippet suffix is empty for c2
+    EXPECT_THAT(Result.Completions,
+                ElementsAre(AllOf(named("bar"), signature("(int arg)"),
+                                  snippetSuffix(""))));
----------------
HighCommander4 wrote:

We will want `snippetSuffix` to be `(${1:A self}, ${2: int arg})`, right (since the user will need to write both arguments in this scenario)?

Given that, would it be fair to say that `signature` being `(int arg)` is also wrong (it should probably be consistent with the snippet suffix)?

(Maybe just amend the TODO comment to talk about both?)

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146649