llvm-project/clang/unittests/AST/ASTContextParentMapTest.cpp

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

120 lines
4.5 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

//===- unittest/AST/ASTContextParentMapTest.cpp - AST parent map test -----===//
//
// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// Tests for the getParents(...) methods of ASTContext.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#include "clang/AST/ASTContext.h"
#include "MatchVerifier.h"
#include "clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.h"
#include "clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h"
#include "clang/Tooling/Tooling.h"
#include "gtest/gtest.h"
[AST] Allow limiting the scope of common AST traversals (getParents, RAV). Summary: The goal is to allow analyses such as clang-tidy checks to run on a subset of the AST, e.g. "only on main-file decls" for interactive tools. Today, these become "problematically global" by running RecursiveASTVisitors rooted at the TUDecl, or by navigating up via ASTContext::getParent(). The scope is restricted using a set of top-level-decls that RecursiveASTVisitors should be rooted at. This also applies to the visitor that populates the parent map, and so the top-level-decls are considered to have no parents. This patch makes the traversal scope a mutable property of ASTContext. The more obvious way to do this is to pass the top-level decls to relevant functions directly, but this has some problems: - it's error-prone: accidentally mixing restricted and unrestricted scopes is a performance trap. Interleaving multiple analyses is common (many clang-tidy checks run matchers or RAVs from matcher callbacks) - it doesn't map well to the actual use cases, where we really do want *all* traversals to be restricted. - it involves a lot of plumbing in parts of the code that don't care about traversals. This approach was tried out in D54259 and D54261, I wanted to like it but it feels pretty awful in practice. Caveats: to get scope-limiting behavior of RecursiveASTVisitors, callers have to call the new TraverseAST(Ctx) function instead of TraverseDecl(TU). I think this is an improvement to the API regardless. Reviewers: klimek, ioeric Subscribers: mgorny, cfe-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54309 llvm-svn: 346847
2018-11-14 18:33:30 +08:00
#include "gmock/gmock.h"
using testing::ElementsAre;
namespace clang {
namespace ast_matchers {
TEST(GetParents, ReturnsParentForDecl) {
MatchVerifier<Decl> Verifier;
EXPECT_TRUE(
Verifier.match("class C { void f(); };",
cxxMethodDecl(hasParent(recordDecl(hasName("C"))))));
}
TEST(GetParents, ReturnsParentForStmt) {
MatchVerifier<Stmt> Verifier;
EXPECT_TRUE(Verifier.match("class C { void f() { if (true) {} } };",
ifStmt(hasParent(compoundStmt()))));
}
TEST(GetParents, ReturnsParentForTypeLoc) {
MatchVerifier<TypeLoc> Verifier;
EXPECT_TRUE(
Verifier.match("namespace a { class b {}; } void f(a::b) {}",
typeLoc(hasParent(typeLoc(hasParent(functionDecl()))))));
}
TEST(GetParents, ReturnsParentForNestedNameSpecifierLoc) {
MatchVerifier<NestedNameSpecifierLoc> Verifier;
EXPECT_TRUE(Verifier.match("namespace a { class b {}; } void f(a::b) {}",
nestedNameSpecifierLoc(hasParent(typeLoc()))));
}
TEST(GetParents, ReturnsParentInsideTemplateInstantiations) {
MatchVerifier<Decl> DeclVerifier;
EXPECT_TRUE(DeclVerifier.match(
"template<typename T> struct C { void f() {} };"
"void g() { C<int> c; c.f(); }",
cxxMethodDecl(hasName("f"),
hasParent(cxxRecordDecl(isTemplateInstantiation())))));
EXPECT_TRUE(DeclVerifier.match(
"template<typename T> struct C { void f() {} };"
"void g() { C<int> c; c.f(); }",
cxxMethodDecl(hasName("f"),
hasParent(cxxRecordDecl(unless(isTemplateInstantiation()))))));
EXPECT_FALSE(DeclVerifier.match(
"template<typename T> struct C { void f() {} };"
"void g() { C<int> c; c.f(); }",
cxxMethodDecl(
hasName("f"),
allOf(hasParent(cxxRecordDecl(unless(isTemplateInstantiation()))),
hasParent(cxxRecordDecl(isTemplateInstantiation()))))));
}
TEST(GetParents, ReturnsMultipleParentsInTemplateInstantiations) {
MatchVerifier<Stmt> TemplateVerifier;
EXPECT_TRUE(TemplateVerifier.match(
"template<typename T> struct C { void f() {} };"
"void g() { C<int> c; c.f(); }",
compoundStmt(allOf(
hasAncestor(cxxRecordDecl(isTemplateInstantiation())),
hasAncestor(cxxRecordDecl(unless(isTemplateInstantiation())))))));
}
[AST] Allow limiting the scope of common AST traversals (getParents, RAV). Summary: The goal is to allow analyses such as clang-tidy checks to run on a subset of the AST, e.g. "only on main-file decls" for interactive tools. Today, these become "problematically global" by running RecursiveASTVisitors rooted at the TUDecl, or by navigating up via ASTContext::getParent(). The scope is restricted using a set of top-level-decls that RecursiveASTVisitors should be rooted at. This also applies to the visitor that populates the parent map, and so the top-level-decls are considered to have no parents. This patch makes the traversal scope a mutable property of ASTContext. The more obvious way to do this is to pass the top-level decls to relevant functions directly, but this has some problems: - it's error-prone: accidentally mixing restricted and unrestricted scopes is a performance trap. Interleaving multiple analyses is common (many clang-tidy checks run matchers or RAVs from matcher callbacks) - it doesn't map well to the actual use cases, where we really do want *all* traversals to be restricted. - it involves a lot of plumbing in parts of the code that don't care about traversals. This approach was tried out in D54259 and D54261, I wanted to like it but it feels pretty awful in practice. Caveats: to get scope-limiting behavior of RecursiveASTVisitors, callers have to call the new TraverseAST(Ctx) function instead of TraverseDecl(TU). I think this is an improvement to the API regardless. Reviewers: klimek, ioeric Subscribers: mgorny, cfe-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54309 llvm-svn: 346847
2018-11-14 18:33:30 +08:00
TEST(GetParents, RespectsTraversalScope) {
auto AST =
tooling::buildASTFromCode("struct foo { int bar; };", "foo.cpp",
std::make_shared<PCHContainerOperations>());
auto &Ctx = AST->getASTContext();
auto &TU = *Ctx.getTranslationUnitDecl();
auto &Foo = *TU.lookup(&Ctx.Idents.get("foo")).front();
auto &Bar = *cast<DeclContext>(Foo).lookup(&Ctx.Idents.get("bar")).front();
// Initially, scope is the whole TU.
EXPECT_THAT(Ctx.getParents(Bar), ElementsAre(DynTypedNode::create(Foo)));
EXPECT_THAT(Ctx.getParents(Foo), ElementsAre(DynTypedNode::create(TU)));
// Restrict the scope, now some parents are gone.
Ctx.setTraversalScope({&Foo});
EXPECT_THAT(Ctx.getParents(Bar), ElementsAre(DynTypedNode::create(Foo)));
EXPECT_THAT(Ctx.getParents(Foo), ElementsAre());
// Reset the scope, we get back the original results.
Ctx.setTraversalScope({&TU});
EXPECT_THAT(Ctx.getParents(Bar), ElementsAre(DynTypedNode::create(Foo)));
EXPECT_THAT(Ctx.getParents(Foo), ElementsAre(DynTypedNode::create(TU)));
}
TEST(GetParents, ImplicitLambdaNodes) {
MatchVerifier<Decl> LambdaVerifier;
EXPECT_TRUE(LambdaVerifier.match(
"auto x = []{int y;};",
varDecl(hasName("y"), hasAncestor(functionDecl(
hasOverloadedOperatorName("()"),
hasParent(cxxRecordDecl(
isImplicit(), hasParent(lambdaExpr())))))),
Lang_CXX11));
}
} // end namespace ast_matchers
} // end namespace clang