kadircet accepted this revision.
kadircet added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM, thanks!
================
Comment at: unittests/clangd/SourceCodeTests.cpp:325
+TEST(SourceCodeTests, VisibleNamespaces) {
+ std::vector<std::pair<const char *, std::vector<std::string>>> Cases = {
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > NIT: maybe switch to TEST_P ?
> I find TEST_P much less readable and prefer to avoid it unless absolutely
> necessary.
> Does it buy anything here?(
I just wanted to make sure we don't have more huge test cases as in
`Hover.All`. I believe it would've helped if we've kept cases in small groups.
But I guess we won't gain much here, since number of cases is not huge and I
think there won't be many additions.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61077/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61077
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
