[PATCH] D36836: [clang-tidy] Implement sonarsource-function-cognitive-complexity check

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman edited reviewers, added: tonic, asl, hfinkel; removed: dberlin.
aaron.ballman added a comment.

In D36836#2292727 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#2292727>, @lebedev.ri wrote:

> In D36836#2292541 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#2292541>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
>> In D36836#2289639 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#2289639>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
>>
>>> Rebased.
>>>
>>> There is a number of official open-source LGPL-3 implementations already:
>>>
>>> - https://github.com/SonarSource/SonarTS/pull/378
>>> - https://github.com/SonarSource/sonar-java/pull/1385
>>> - https://github.com/SonarSource/SonarJS/pull/449
>>> - https://github.com/SonarSource/sonar-php/pull/173
>>>
>>> There are other open-source LGPL-3 implementations already:
>>>
>>> - https://pypi.org/project/cognitive-complexity/ (MIT)
>>> - https://github.com/rossmacarthur/complexity (APACHE/MIT)
>>>
>>> There are other 3rd party implementations:
>>>
>>> - https://docs.codeclimate.com/docs/cognitive-complexity
>>>
>>> Quite honestly, i do not understand how did the license question arose.
>>
>> It arose in a comment that I can't seem to get phab to show me the context for (which is a bit strange, I don't think I've run into that before): https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#877636 Perhaps part of this was carrying discussion over from the IRC channel?
>>
>>> Would have it been fine if i based this on the open-source-licensed code?
>>
>> I believe that would require legal analysis to answer.
>>
>>> Would have it not been? Would same license question be raised?
>>
>> Likewise here (I suspect the answer would depend on what the license of the open source code is).
>>
>>> Somehow i don't think it would have been.
>>
>> I don't wish to speculate about legal licensing issues on the mailing lists.
>>
>>> Is this really just about `Copyright SonarSource S.A., 2018, Switzerland. All content is copyright protected.` in https://www.sonarsource.com/docs/CognitiveComplexity.pdf ?
>>> But that is only about the document, not the algorithm.
>>> But even if we enternain the idea that all of the implementations must bow to that license,
>>> then surely this is not the first code in LLVM that is implicitly/explicitly based on copyrighted doc.
>>>
>>> This is rather frustrating.
>>
>> I am sorry and I agree that it's frustrating.
>
>
>
>> As far as I know, this captures the current state of affairs: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#1031600
>
> As far as I know, yes. Some further back&forth reiterated:
>
>> @Roman so you know, none of the non-SonarSource implementations have an official license from us.
>> We put the spec out in the world and we're happy when someone uses it. And that's all.
>> I appreciate how frustrated you must be with your implementation caught between a proverbial rock and a hard place.
>> Unfortunately, we (the company) just aren't willing to do the paperwork.
>> (G. Ann Campbell)
>
> F13053113: reply.eml <https://reviews.llvm.org/F13053113>

Personally, I'm hopeful that this is sufficient to get us unstuck, but I'm not willing to make the determination simply because of the typical community view on making licensing decisions.

>> and basically we're waiting for help from the foundation to clear the last hurdle.
>
> Is foundation even aware of this controversy/situation?
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836#1021863, which is the last response i got, was 2.5 years ago.
> For all we/i know this has gone off their radar.
> I understand that it is fully possible that they simply haven't gotten around to it,
> but i think it would be important to check that it isn't the case of lost mail.

I totally agree that we should double-check as it feels like this fell off the radar and I appreciate you pinging the review. @chandlerc is no longer on the foundation board and it looks like Danny is no longer on phabricator, so I've added some current LLVM foundation board members as reviewers to see if any of them can help us make progress.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D36836