llvmbot wrote:
<!--LLVM PR SUMMARY COMMENT--> @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-tools-extra @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-tidy Author: Florian Mayer (fmayer) <details> <summary>Changes</summary> --- Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/180662.diff 1 Files Affected: - (modified) clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst (+41-1) ``````````diff diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst index 7aef674724b08..bd1054ce68415 100644 --- a/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst +++ b/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil/unchecked-statusor-access.rst @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ known to have ok status. For example: Ensuring that the status is ok using common macros -------------------------------------------------- -The check is aware of common macros like ``ABSL_CHECK`` and ``ASSERT_THAT``. +The check is aware of common macros like ``ABSL_CHECK`` or ``ABSL_CHECK_OK``, Those can be used to ensure that the status of a ``StatusOr<T>`` object is ok. For example: @@ -104,6 +104,46 @@ is ok. For example: use(*x); } +Ensuring that the status is ok using googletest macros +------------------------------------------------------ + +The check is aware of ``googletest`` (or ``gtest``) macros and matchers. +Accessing the value of a ``StatusOr<T>`` object is considered safe if it +is preceded by an ``ASSERT_`` macro that ensures the status is ok. +For example + +.. code:: cpp + + TEST(MySuite, MyTest) { + absl::StatusOr<int> x = foo(); + ASSERT_OK(x); + use(*x); + } + + TEST(MySuite, MyOtherTest) { + absl::StatusOr<int> x = foo(); + ASSERT_THAT(x, absl_testing::IsOk()); + use(*x); + } + +The following ``googletest`` macros are supported: + +- ``ASSERT_OK(...)`` +- ``ASSERT_TRUE(...)`` +- ``ASSERT_FALSE(...)`` +- ``ASSERT_THAT(...)`` + +The following matchers are supported: + +- ``IsOk()`` +- ``StatusIs(...)`` +- ``IsOkAndHolds(...)`` +- ``CanonicalStatusIs(...)`` + +**Note**: ``EXPECT_`` macros (like ``EXPECT_OK`` or ``EXPECT_TRUE(x.ok())``) +do **not** make subsequent accesses safe because they do not terminate the +test execution. + Ensuring that the status is ok, then accessing the value in a correlated branch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- `````````` </details> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/180662 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
