[cfe-dev] Removing the naming checks from clang's .clang-tidy files

[Ilya Biryukov via cfe-dev]

Totally agree, if we had a nice UI (in Phabricator?) or a script to show
only clang-tidy warnings touching the change diffs, disabling these checks
would have been a much harder sell.
Even in that case, though, we'd probably want to have different configs for
clang-tidy-over-diffs and clang-tidy to avoid cluttering the output when
using clangd or standalone clang-tidy.

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:44 PM Jonas Toth <development at jonas-toth.eu> wrote:

> I think there could be two modes in which clang-tidy is being run.
>
> For new code seeing these violations would be great, but they could be run
> as linter in `arc`, for existing code this is of course
> another thing.
>
> In my opinion we should lint new code better and have clang-tidy run there
> at least with full configuration enabled.
> Am 01.02.19 um 12:21 schrieb Ilya Biryukov via cfe-dev:
>
> We disabled the two most noisy checks in r352862 and clang-tidy now
> produces only 3 warnings on Sema.h.
> Let us know if you have concerns and feel we should revert this.
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:03 PM Ilya Biryukov <ibiryukov at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi cfe-dev,
>>
>> Clangd started showing clang-tidy warnings recently and I've noticed
>> there is too much of by clang-tidy inside the clang codebase, and most of
>> it is coming from 'readability-identifier-naming' check (at least in the
>> Sema and Parser code).
>>
>> E.g. running
>> ./bin/clang-tidy  ../llvm/clang/lib/Parse/ParseExpr.cpp
>>
>> produces produces 52 warnings, 51 of which are naming violations from
>> 'readability-identifier-naming'. 'Sema.h' has 1830 clang-tidy warnings with
>> 'readability-identifier-naming' and 228 without it.
>>
>> IIUC, the consensus is that renaming everything to align with the style
>> guide is just not worth it (would introduce merge conflicts, mess up the
>> history, etc). Does this render the naming check non-useful for the
>> 'clang/' project? Should we remove it from  'clang/.clang-tidy'?
>>
>> Are there other alternatives that could bring down the noise in
>> clang-tidy output and actually make it useful (e.g. we could put a
>> file-wide NOLINT comments into those files)?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Ilya Biryukov
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ilya Biryukov
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing listcfe-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Ilya Biryukov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20190201/a30f2a1f/attachment.html>