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

review: feature ExecutableReferenceFilter #1318

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 29, 2017

Conversation

pvojtechovsky
Copy link
Collaborator

A ExecutableReferenceFilter provides fast matching for all CtExecutableReferences of defined set of CtExecutables.
It is used to found all invocations of CtExecutables in future method refactoring PRs.

This filter is much faster and has different contract then legacy InvocationFilter, which

  1. is able to search only for one CtExecutable
  2. searches not only for exact reference to one executable (like ExecutableReferenceFilter), but it matches each reference, which overrides input executable.

If you do not like contract of ExecutableReferenceFilter, then optional solution would be to refactor legacy InvocationFilter by way it can be configured to support contract of this ExecutableReferenceFilter - to return (if configured so) exact (not overriding) invocations of more then one executable.

@pvojtechovsky pvojtechovsky force-pushed the featExecutableReferenceFilter branch from dde7691 to 429e254 Compare May 22, 2017 20:38
@pvojtechovsky pvojtechovsky force-pushed the featExecutableReferenceFilter branch from 429e254 to a553817 Compare May 23, 2017 17:05
@pvojtechovsky pvojtechovsky changed the title review3: feature ExecutableReferenceFilter review: feature ExecutableReferenceFilter May 23, 2017
@monperrus monperrus merged commit 423c70c into INRIA:master May 29, 2017
@pvojtechovsky pvojtechovsky deleted the featExecutableReferenceFilter branch May 29, 2017 18:20
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