================
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTest.cpp:3051
@@ +3050,3 @@
+
+TEST(LoopingMatchers, DoNotOverwritePreviousMatchResultOnFailure) {
+ EXPECT_TRUE(matchAndVerifyResultTrue(
----------------
Manuel Klimek wrote:
> Edwin Vane wrote:
> > There are a lot of tests here all following the same pattern: do a bind and
> > have a sub-matcher fail that doesn't cause the whole expression to fail.
> > Are these tests meant to be an exhaustive list of matchers that can fail?
> > Why did you choose these particular tests?
> All changes made in this CL that were not "simple refactorings" have been
> test driven.
>
> That is: I write a test, see it fail, then implement enough to make it work.
I understand what you're doing now. Is it possible to add a comment to
illustrate the philosophy behind the differences of these EXPECTs so somebody
in the future knows what can/should be added to this test case? I know they
just grew organically for you but there must be some common thread that made
you pick these different matchers.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D992
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
