[PATCH] D52984: [analyzer] Checker reviewer's checklist

[Gábor Horváth via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

xazax.hun created this revision.
xazax.hun added reviewers: NoQ, george.karpenkov, Szelethus, rnkovacs, szepet, dcoughlin, a.sidorin, MTC.
xazax.hun added a project: clang.
Herald added subscribers: mikhail.ramalho, dkrupp, baloghadamsoftware, whisperity.

This is a first proposal to have a checklist for reviewing checkers.
Feel free to propose additional points or moving it around in the HTML document (or putting it somewhere else?)
I think this would come handy to catch some of the most common errors, omissions when reviewing checks.
For example, we tend to not update the list of checks at the homepage.

+ Added Devin for potential word smithing.


Repository:
  rC Clang

https://reviews.llvm.org/D52984

Files:
  www/analyzer/checker_dev_manual.html


Index: www/analyzer/checker_dev_manual.html
===================================================================
--- www/analyzer/checker_dev_manual.html
+++ www/analyzer/checker_dev_manual.html
@@ -705,6 +705,17 @@
 <li>The list of <a href="implicit_checks.html">Implicit Checkers</a></li>
 </ul>
 
+<h2 id=links>Checker Reviewer Checklist</h2>
+<ul>
+<li>Is there unintended branching in the exploded graph?</li>
+<li>Are there unintended sinks?</li>
+<li>Produced reports are easy to understand? Do we need bug visitors? Is there a way to suppress false positives?</li>
+<li>Have the checker been run on large projects?</li>
+<li>Did we update the list of available checks on the homepage?</li>
+<li>Are GDM structures properly cleaned up?</li>
+<li>Escaping into unkown functions is properly handled (if applicable)?</li>
+</ul>
+
 </div>
 </div>
 </body>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D52984.168654.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 859 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20181008/0ee6e654/attachment.bin>