sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/LSPClient.cpp:27
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> Lock(Mu);
- if (!clangd::wait(Lock, CV, timeoutSeconds(10),
[this] { return Value.has_value(); })) {
----------------
I think we're better of just increasing the number, unless there's some reason
to think that different timeouts are appropriate for different tests.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/LSPClient.cpp:218
+void LSPClient::sync() {
+ // Sync should already be implemented with a timeout, so don't timeout.
+ call("sync", nullptr).takeValue(0);
----------------
Unless this is actually broken, it doesn't seem worth adding complexity for,
though.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158426/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158426
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
