-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve test coverage after #1256. #1286
Improve test coverage after #1256. #1286
Conversation
This change updated a test to use a different example to make sure a diagnostic was still being exercised, but as a consequence lost test coverage of the situation the test was originally intended to cover. Add back the old test and put the new test into a different file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
|
||
package ExplorerTest api; | ||
|
||
// CHECK: COMPILATION ERROR: {{.*}}/explorer/testdata/impl/fail_impl_as_non_interface.carbon:[[@LINE+1]]: expected constraint after `as`, found value of type String |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there any concern that the error message is bad, in that it says "value of type String" instead of "String" or "value of type Type"?
interface Vector(Scalar:! Type) { | ||
} | ||
|
||
// CHECK: COMPILATION ERROR: {{.*}}/explorer/testdata/impl/fail_impl_as_parameterized.carbon:[[@LINE+1]]: Expected a type, but got Vector |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This error message seems wrong too -- a type isn't expected in place of "Vector".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Glad that you're restoring the test coverage.
This change updated a test to use a different example to make sure a diagnostic was still being exercised, but as a consequence lost test coverage of the situation the test was originally intended to cover. Add back the old test and put the new test into a different file.
This change updated a test to use a different example to make sure a
diagnostic was still being exercised, but as a consequence lost test
coverage of the situation the test was originally intended to cover.
Add back the old test and put the new test into a different file.