On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:32 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Author: alexfh >>>> Date: Tue Nov 4 09:25:22 2014 >>>> New Revision: 221272 >>>> >>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=221272&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> [clang-tidy] Don't print a message if there's no error. >>>> >>> >>> Test coverage? >>> >> >> It's a trivial change, and it needs a custom configuration format handler >> to be tested which makes it relatively expensive to test it here. >> > > Sometimes this is an indication of a chunk of functionality that isn't > tested. Is there much other coverage missing in-tree for testing custom > configuration format handlers? Perhaps all together it'd be worth adding a > custom configuration format handler, even if this one case doesn't look > worthwhile. > > Just a thought > > >> But rest assured that the change is going to be tested on every >> invocation of our internal build ;) >> > Sure enough - but having the testing upstream means we don't have to triage it on an internal failure when someone else breaks it upstream.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
