[PATCH] D61386: [clang-tidy] Add support writing a check as a Transformer rewrite rule.

[Ilya Biryukov via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

ilya-biryukov marked an inline comment as done.
ilya-biryukov added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/TransformerClangTidyCheck.cpp:46
+
+  StringRef Message = "no explanation";
+  if (Case.Explanation) {
----------------
ymandel wrote:
> ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > The users will see this for every case without explanation, right?
> > I'd expect the rules without explanation to be somewhat common, maybe don't show any message at all in that case?
> There's no option to call `diag()` without a message.  We could pass an empty string , but that may be confusing given the way the message is concatenated here:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp#L204
> 
> So, no matter what, there will be some message to go w/ the diagnostic. I figure that being explicit about the lack of explanation is better than an empty string, but don't feel strongly about this.
Ah, so all the options are bad. I can see why you had this design in transformers in the first place.
I wonder if we should check the explanations are always set for rewrite rules inside the clang-tidy transformation?


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/TransformerClangTidyCheck.h:1
+//===---------- TransformerClangTidyCheck.h - clang-tidy ------------------===//
+//
----------------
ymandel wrote:
> ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > NIT: maybe use `TransformerCheck` for brevity? I'm not a `clang-tidy` maintainer, though, so not sure whether that aligns with the rest of the code.
> It was TransformerTidy and Dmitri suggested I be explicit. I think TransformerCheck is better than TransformerTidy, but I also see the argument in spelling it out.  WDYT?
Let's stick with Dmitri's suggestion. He has much more experience with LLVM than I do :-)


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D61386/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D61386