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

Thu Sep 5 13:29:41 PDT 2019

gribozavr added a comment.

In D67140#1658365 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140#1658365>, @aaron.ballman wrote:

> In D67140#1658353 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140#1658353>, @gribozavr wrote:
>
> > In D67140#1658315 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140#1658315>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> >
> > > 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. ;-)
> >
> >
> > I have the opposite opinion -- I wish that ClangTidy used complete sentences, and multiple sentences if it makes sense. The sentence fragments are too brief to explain complex and nuanced topics that ClangTidy communicates about. ClangTidy often plays the role of a developer education tool. It is not a guard like a compiler; developers can totally ignore ClangTidy if they disagree with the message. The better we can explain the problem, the more likely it is the developer will act on the message. I believe static analysis tools would be better off if we could write multiple sentences in the diagnostic.
> >
> > Even for compiler messages, a sentence fragment is sometimes too concise.
>
>
> I agree with you in principle, but practicality still matters. I don't imagine we're going to go back and change the thousands of diagnostics in Clang to be complete sentences, and I prefer my diagnostics to be consistent. It's jarring when one part of the compiler uses one style of diagnostics and another part of the compiler uses a different style. So while I'd love it if we had more descriptive diagnostics, I would be happy to settle for consistent styles of diagnostics.

Why do static analysis tools have to be consistent with Clang in its message style?

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140