[PATCH] D137252: [include-cleaner] Testing helpers for ast walking

sammccall added a comment. Agree there are readability concerns here (long macro names, out-of-line kinds, complicated macros). My suggestion would be to treat RefKind as an optional feature. Most tests would just assert the set of marked locations and test the cases where kind is interesting

[PATCH] D137252: [include-cleaner] Testing helpers for ast walking

hokein added a comment. In D137252#3907743 , @kadircet wrote: > In D137252#3907665 , @hokein wrote: > >> Just share my experience when reading the code, overall I have a feeling >> that we're regressing the code

[PATCH] D137252: [include-cleaner] Testing helpers for ast walking

kadircet marked an inline comment as done. kadircet added a comment. In D137252#3907665 , @hokein wrote: > Just share my experience when reading the code, overall I have a feeling that > we're regressing the code readability of the tests (left some

[PATCH] D137252: [include-cleaner] Testing helpers for ast walking

hokein added a comment. Just share my experience when reading the code, overall I have a feeling that we're regressing the code readability of the tests (left some comments on regressing samples): 1. with the sugared macros, the syntax of `TargetCode` and `ReferenceCode` are identical -- both

[PATCH] D137252: [include-cleaner] Testing helpers for ast walking

kadircet created this revision. kadircet added reviewers: hokein, sammccall. Herald added a subscriber: mgrang. Herald added a project: All. kadircet requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: clang-tools-extra. Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits. Address comments around