[PATCH] D57674: [clang-tidy] Add options to bugprone-argument-comment to add missing argument comments to literals

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman added a comment.

Can you drop the file mode changes that are in this review?



================
Comment at: clang-tidy/bugprone/ArgumentCommentCheck.cpp:292-293
+    // If the argument comments are missing for literals add them.
+    if (Comments.empty()) {
+      if (((isa<CXXBoolLiteralExpr>(Args[I]) && AddCommentsToBoolLiterals) ||
+           (isa<IntegerLiteral>(Args[I]) && AddCommentsToIntegerLiterals) ||
----------------
These can be combined into a single `if` statement.


================
Comment at: clang-tidy/bugprone/ArgumentCommentCheck.cpp:300-301
+            diag(Args[I]->getBeginLoc(),
+                 "argument comment missing for literal argument"
+                 " %0")
+            << II
----------------
Why is this split into two lines?


================
Comment at: clang-tidy/bugprone/ArgumentCommentCheck.cpp:304
+            << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(Args[I]->getBeginLoc(), ArgComment);
+        continue;
+      }
----------------
This `continue` can be dropped without changing the semantics, correct?


================
Comment at: clang-tidy/bugprone/ArgumentCommentCheck.h:44-46
+  const bool AddCommentsToBoolLiterals;
+  const bool AddCommentsToIntegerLiterals;
+  const bool AddCommentsToFloatLiterals;
----------------
Why not character or string literals?
What about `nullptr` literals or UDLs?


================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-argument-comment.rst:40
+
+  void foo(bool turn_key,bool press_button);
+
----------------
Format the code examples from our style guide as well (same below).


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D57674/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D57674