[PATCH] D40671: [clang-tidy] Support specific checks for NOLINT directive

[Alexander Kornienko via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

alexfh accepted this revision.
alexfh added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#949732, @xgsa wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#949687, @alexfh wrote:
>
> > How are unknown check names handled? More specifically: will the `// NOLINT(runtime/explicit)` comment disable all clang-tidy checks or none?
>
>
> None. If comment is syntactically correct and contains parenthesis, it works only for the known checks inside.
>
> Still, I don't think it worth mentioning all the corner cases in documentation to keep things simple.


Documenting interaction with cpplint-style NOLINT categories would potentially save time to the users and clang-tidy maintainers (at least for codebases using Google style and cpplint). Fine for a follow-up.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#953888, @aaron.ballman wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671#953291, @xgsa wrote:
>
> > @aaron.ballman, sorry for my insistence, but it seems all the comments are fixed and the patch is ready for commit or am I missing something? Could you please commit it on my behalf, as I don't have rights to do that?
>
>
> The check now LGTM, but I am going to wait to commit in case @alexfh has concerns regarding unknown check names.
>
> FWIW, I think we should do something about unknown check names in NOLINT comments, but that can be done as a follow-up patch. If we're ignoring the comment, we might want to diagnose that fact so users have an idea what's going on.


IIUC, cpplint can output a diagnostic about unknown categories inside NOLINT and about NOLINT directives that happen on lines where no warning is emitted. Both would be useful in clang-tidy, IMO.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D40671