On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:25 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >> > It may make sense. I'll try to add some tests later, if this code grows more features. > >> 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
