Failed<ErrorInfoBase>() did not compile, because it was attempting to
create a copy of the Error object when passing it to the nested matcher,
which was not possible because ErrorInfoBase is abstract.
This commit fixes the problem by making sure we pass the ErrorInfo
object by reference, which also improves the handling of non-abstract
objects, as we avoid potentially slicing an object during the copy.
llvm-svn: 329703
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
Summary:
This makes it possible to run an arbitrary matcher on the value
contained within the Expected<T> object.
To do this, I've needed to fully spell out the matcher, instead of using
the shorthand MATCHER_P macro.
The slight gotcha here is that standard template deduction will fail if
one tries to match HasValue(47) against an Expected<int &> -- the
workaround is to use HasValue(testing::Eq(47)).
The explanations produced by this matcher have changed a bit, since now
we delegate to the nested matcher to print the value. Since these don't
put quotes around the value, I've changed our PrintTo methods to match.
Reviewers: zturner
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41065
llvm-svn: 320561
Summary:
This did not work because the ExpectedHolder was trying to hold the
value in an Optional<T*>. Instead of trying to mimic the behavior of
Expected and try to make ExpectedHolder work with references and
non-references, I simply store the reference to the Expected object in
the holder.
I also add a bunch of tests for these matchers, which have helped me
flesh out some problems in my initial implementation of this patch, and
uncovered the fact that we are not consistent in quoting our values in
the matcher output (which I also fix).
Reviewers: zturner, chandlerc
Subscribers: mgorny, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40904
llvm-svn: 320025
Summary:
The const_cast in the "const" version of TakeExpected was quite
dangerous, as the function does indeed modify the apparently const
argument.
I assume the reason the const overload was added was to make the
function bind to xvalues(temporaries). That can be also achieved with
rvalue references, so I use that instead.
Using the ASSERT macros on const Expected objects will now become
illegal, but I believe that is correct, as it is not actually possible
to inspect the error stored in an Expected object without modifying it.
Reviewers: zturner, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34405
llvm-svn: 306001
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
