It does use lit tests, but lit tests are not the answer for everything; they are very good for integration style tests (like checking that a rename actually renamed something), but very bad for testing a library.
Note that we do want to migrate (most of) clang-format's tests to lit tests (because most of them are integration tests), but that's a different topic. On Sun Aug 17 2014 at 10:07:14 PM David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Aug 17, 2014, at 14:00, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Author: klimek > >> Date: Sun Aug 17 13:00:59 2014 > >> New Revision: 215839 > >> > >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=215839&view=rev > >> Log: > >> First version of a clang-rename tool. > >> > >> Summary: > >> Note that this code is still grossly under-tested - the next steps will > >> be to add significantly better test coverage. > >> > > > > Please use lit tests. Filecheck is fine, a -verify would be awesome. > Please just stay away from clang-format like mega gtest files. > > Curious - what's the problem with clang-format's testing? > > - David >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
