[PATCH] D67140: [analyzer][NFC] Fix inconsistent references to checkers as "checks"

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman added a comment.

In D67140#1656831 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140#1656831>, @NoQ wrote:

> Honestly, i'm much more worried about message capitalization :)


Likewise. I wish the static analyzer would follow the usual conventions followed by clang and clang-tidy. ;-)

In D67140#1657421 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140#1657421>, @alexfh wrote:

> Historically, clang-tidy only used the term "check" (to denote the thing that checks something, rather than the rule being checked or the act of checking), and we tried to keep its use consistent. However, "checker" is a more precise and less ambiguous way to convey this meaning. I support to use the term "checker" in clang-tidy, as long as someone is willing to update the code and documentation (except for verbs, e.g. the `check()` method ;). Also note that there's a non-trivial number of out-of-tree check(er)s out there. They will need to be updated as well.
>
> Adding Aaron in case he has a different opinion.


My primary concern is with needless churn for out-of-tree clients. They don't get any real added benefit from the change in nomenclature, but renaming `ClangTidyCheck` to `ClangTidyChecker` will break every single out of tree clang-tidy checker. I've not used the plugin infrastructure for clang-tidy, but will this cause plugins to fail to load? If so, is it a silent failure or a noisy one?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140