Summary:
Annotations allow writing nice-looking unit test code when one needs
access to locations from the source code, e.g. running code completion
at particular offsets in a file. See comments in Annotations.cpp for
more details on the API.
Also got rid of a duplicate annotations parsing code in clang's code
complete tests.
Reviewers: gribozavr, sammccall
Reviewed By: gribozavr
Subscribers: mgorny, hiraditya, ioeric, MaskRay, jkorous, arphaman, kadircet, jdoerfert, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59814
llvm-svn: 359179
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
We can't put the unittest source dir map in the configuration
specific directory because VS doesn't have a configure-specific
directory, instead it only knows this at runtime. So we have
to remove this from the path. This in turn means that the path
will be slightly different in VS configurations vs non vs
configurations. In the former, the source map will be in the
parent directory of the executable, and in the latter it will
be in the same directory as the executable. So check both.
llvm-svn: 341590
libLLVMTestingSupport.so references a symbol in utils/unittest/UnitTestMain/TestMain.cpp (a layering issue) and will cause a link error because of -Wl,-z,defs (cmake/modules/HandleLLVMOptions.cmake)
Waiting zturner for a better fix.
llvm-svn: 341580
Occasionally it is useful to have unittest which take inputs.
While we normally try to have this test be more of a lit test
we occasionally don't have tools that can exercise the code
in the right way to test certain things. LLDB has been using
this style of unit test for a while, particularly with regards
to how it tests core dump and minidump file parsing. Recently
i needed this as well for the case where we want to test that
some of the PDB reading code works correctly. It needs to
exercise the code in a way that is not covered by any dumper
and would be impractical to implement in one of the dumpers,
but requires a valid PDB file. Since this is now needed by
more than one project, it makes sense to have this be a
generally supported thing that unit tests can do, and we just
encourage people to use this sparingly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51561
llvm-svn: 341502
Explicitly link LLVMTestingSupport library against LLVMSupport. This
is necessary to fix linking errors when LLVMTestingSupport is built
as a shared library (with BUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON) and -Wl,-z,defs is used.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45408
llvm-svn: 329522
Summary:
The existing Failed() matcher only allowed asserting that the operation
failed, but it was not possible to verify any details of the returned
error.
This patch adds two new matchers, which make this possible:
- Failed<InfoT>() verifies that the operation failed with a single error
of a given type.
- Failed<InfoT>(M) additionally check that the contained error info
object is matched by the nested matcher M.
To make these work, I've changed the implementation of the ErrorHolder
class. Now, instead of just storing the string representation of the
Error, it fetches the ErrorInfo objects and stores then as a list of
shared pointers. This way, ErrorHolder remains copyable, while still
retaining the full information contained in the Error object.
In case the Error object contains two or more errors, the new matchers
will fail to match, instead of trying to match all (or any) of the
individual ErrorInfo objects. This seemed to be the most sensible
behavior for when one wants to match exact error details, but I could be
convinced otherwise...
Reviewers: zturner, lhames
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44925
llvm-svn: 329288
gtest depends on this #define to determine whether it can
use various classes like std::tuple, or whether it has to fall
back to experimental classes in the std::tr1 namespace. The
check in the current version of gtest relies on the value of
the `__cplusplus` macro, but MSVC provides a non-conformant
value of this macro, making it effectively impossible to detect
C++11. In short, LLVM compiled with MSVC has been silently
using the tr1 versions of several classes since the beginning of
time.
This would normally be pretty benign, except that in the latest
preview of MSVC they have marked all of the tr1 classes
deprecated, so it spews thousands of warnings.
llvm-svn: 316798
Many times unit tests for different libraries would like to use
the same helper functions for checking common types of errors.
This patch adds a common library with helpers for testing things
in Support, and introduces helpers in here for integrating the
llvm::Error and llvm::Expected<T> classes with gtest and gmock.
Normally, we would just be able to write:
EXPECT_THAT(someFunction(), succeeded());
but due to some quirks in llvm::Error's move semantics, gmock
doesn't make this easy, so two macros EXPECT_THAT_ERROR() and
EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED() are introduced to gloss over the difficulties.
Consider this an exception, and possibly only temporary as we
look for ways to improve this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33059
llvm-svn: 305395
Ilya Biryukov