On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sun Aug 17 2014 at 11:43:39 PM Rafael Espíndola < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > 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. >> >> Well, that was the topic of my reply :-) >> >> When gtest is appropriate, do use it. My request was just to not build >> another large test set that we want to migrate in the future. >> > > Then we agree! :) Please give specific feedback if you see a gtest test > that you think should be a lit test! > > In this case, it seems like you should write a unit test for the routine that uses the offsets to actually do the renaming. Then you can write this test as a lit test that checks that the relevant things get renamed. Also, why are we committing code that is "grossly under-tested" in the first place? (sorry if this was discussed in another thread) -- Sean Silva > >> Cheers, >> Rafael >> > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
