Skip to content
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

Fixed #704: Support for lambdas capturing structured bindings which binds to array or data member #705

Conversation

flovent
Copy link
Contributor

@flovent flovent commented Mar 19, 2025

BindingDecl can only get VarDecl from getHoldingVar when they binds to tuple-like structures, we can get InitStyle directly from outside DecompositionDecl for three kinds of structured binding.

for detaill of three kinds of structured binding, see
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/structured_binding#:~:text=C%2B%2B26).-,Binding%20process,-A%20structured%20binding

@andreasfertig
Copy link
Owner

Hello @flovent,

thanks for reporting and fixing this issue!

There is a typo in the file extension of the test result file .except => .expected.

Andreas

@flovent
Copy link
Contributor Author

flovent commented Mar 19, 2025

@andreasfertig Thank you for your very quick feedback! Did you mean that it should be Issue704.excepted? i see other testcases use except as suffix

@andreasfertig
Copy link
Owner

Hello @flovent

@andreasfertig Thank you for your very quick feedback!

my pleasure!

Did you mean that it should be Issue704.excepted? i see other testcases use except as suffix

Yes, Issue704.excepted. The result should come from a macOS Clang, which is used for the main tests.

Andreas

@flovent
Copy link
Contributor Author

flovent commented Mar 19, 2025

@andreasfertig Testfile's name is updated.

@flovent
Copy link
Contributor Author

flovent commented Mar 19, 2025

I think i find the problem here.... it should be expect rather than except.

Sorry for the typo again.

@andreasfertig
Copy link
Owner

Hello @flovent,

I think i find the problem here.... it should be expect rather than except.

Sorry, I copied and pasted your answer without double-checking and started with the wrong extension myself. The result file name should be Issue704.expect as all the others.

Andreas

@flovent
Copy link
Contributor Author

flovent commented Mar 19, 2025

@andreasfertig I changed it to the right filename and confirm this testcase is passed on my local environment, it should be OK now.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 19, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.34%. Comparing base (34624e8) to head (a026551).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #705   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.34%   97.34%           
=======================================
  Files          21       21           
  Lines        6659     6666    +7     
=======================================
+ Hits         6482     6489    +7     
  Misses        177      177           
Flag Coverage Δ
insights-macos 96.53% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
insights-ubuntu-amd64-libcxx-No 98.11% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
insights-ubuntu-amd64-libcxx-Yes 98.10% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
insights-ubuntu-arm64-libcxx-No 98.11% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
insights-ubuntu-arm64-libcxx-Yes 98.10% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@andreasfertig andreasfertig merged commit 458e9f2 into andreasfertig:main Mar 19, 2025
14 checks passed
@flovent flovent deleted the sup-captured-structured-binding-array-or-data-member branch March 20, 2025 00:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants