[PATCH] D69813: [analyzer] CERTStrChecker: Model gets()

Thu Nov 7 00:59:23 PST 2019

aaron.ballman added a comment.

In D69813#1736045 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813#1736045>, @Charusso wrote:

> In D69813#1735988 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813#1735988>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
> > I'm not @NoQ, but I do agree that there should be a separate check per rule in terms of the UI presented to the user. The name should follow the rule ID like they do in clang-tidy, for some consistency there.
> >  I think that the rule number should be in the name. I'd probably go with `cert.STR31-C` or `cert.str31-c` (so it's clear which CERT standard the rule came from).
>
>
> We warmly welcome not (@NoQ)s! I think Artem really wanted to start this direction to make the two tool work together, but I have seen his project is unbelievably difficult so that it is a little-bit far away, sadly. Even we are far away to have multiple CERT rules in this package, if the Tidy users like the code-names, I cannot say no to start the collaboration with Tidy. I would pick `cert.str.31-c`, as @Szelethus pointed out we use lower-case words for package names and then we can run every `cert.str` checker at once.

Would it make sense to use `cert.str.31.c` to remove the random dash? Would this also help the user to do something like `cert.str.*.cpp`? if they want just the CERT C++ STR rules checked? Or can they do that already even with the `-`?

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813