Bug 51303

Summary:

check-webkit-style should detect function declarations (and trivial functions).

Product:

WebKit

Reporter:

David Levin <levin>

Component:

Tools / Tests

Assignee:

David Levin <levin>

Status:

RESOLVED FIXED

Severity:

Normal

CC:

hamaji

Priority:

Version:

528+ (Nightly build)

Hardware:

All

OS:

All

Bug Depends on:

Bug Blocks:

49394

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Patch	none

David Levin

Reported 2010-12-18 23:06:02 PST

This is needed for bug 49394 (which examines declarations).

Attachments
Patch (8.84 KB, patch) 2010-12-18 23:49 PST, David Levin	no flags	Details Formatted Diff Diff
View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.

David Levin

Comment 1 2010-12-18 23:49:10 PST

Created attachment 76955 [details] Patch

Shinichiro Hamaji

Comment 2 2010-12-19 12:32:14 PST

Comment on attachment 76955 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=76955&action=review Looks good, putting some nitpicks on test. Please feel free to ignore some of (or even all of) them if they don't make sense. > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/style/checkers/cpp_unittest.py:240 > + if not function_information: I'd add a trivial test case which passes this case. Not sure, but "if (foobar) { something... }" or "for (foobar;...) { ... }" would be good candidates? > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/style/checkers/cpp_unittest.py:2818 > + self.assert_pass_ptr_check( s/pass_ptr/pass_ref_ptr/ ? > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/style/checkers/cpp_unittest.py:2823 > + self.assert_pass_ptr_check( s/pass_ptr/pass_ref_ptr/ ? > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/style/checkers/cpp_unittest.py:2837 > + ' PassRefPtr<Type1> m_other;\n' I guess RefPtr would be more realistic?

David Levin

Comment 3 2010-12-20 11:39:01 PST

(In reply to comment #2) > (From update of attachment 76955 [details]) > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=76955&action=review > > Looks good, putting some nitpicks on test. Please feel free to ignore some of (or even all of) them if they don't make sense. > > > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/style/checkers/cpp_unittest.py:240 > > + if not function_information: > > I'd add a trivial test case which passes this case. Not sure, but "if (foobar) { something... }" or "for (foobar;...) { ... }" would be good candidates? Done. > > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/style/checkers/cpp_unittest.py:2818 > > + self.assert_pass_ptr_check( > > s/pass_ptr/pass_ref_ptr/ ? I left this as is because the test is about Pass*Ptr. (It checks Pass.*Ptr so that it catches PassRefPtr and PassOwnPtr. Other things named the same way should follow the same rule.) > > Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/style/checkers/cpp_unittest.py:2837 > > + ' PassRefPtr<Type1> m_other;\n' > > I guess RefPtr would be more realistic? Done. (Good point :).)

David Levin

Comment 4 2010-12-20 11:39:38 PST

Committed as http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/74356

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.