[PATCH] D83224: [clangd] Move clang-tidy check modifications into ClangdServer

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdServer.cpp:115
+// either due to crashes or false positives.
+const char *getClangTidyBlacklist() {
+  static const std::string FalsePositives =
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > kadircet wrote:
> > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > njames93 wrote:
> > > > > > Return by StringRef?
> > > > > How about `getDisabledClangTidyChecks()` (or literally any other name than blacklist)?
> > > > thanks for bringing this to my attention, i will try to be more conscious next time.
> > > > 
> > > > I would prefer allow/deny as `disabled` might also be offensive in some contexts. Do you know if we already have some settlements around this one in the wider community?
> > > > thanks for bringing this to my attention, i will try to be more conscious next time.
> > > 
> > > No worries!
> > > 
> > > > I would prefer allow/deny as disabled might also be offensive in some contexts. Do you know if we already have some settlements around this one in the wider community?
> > > 
> > > I don't believe there's any consensus around avoiding use of "disabled" (we use the term in a lot of places, especially when paired with "enabled"), but I'd also be fine with allow/deny terminology instead.
> > > 
> > > As a minor drive-by comment, the function should also be marked `static` and placed outside of the anonymous namespace (per our usual coding style).
> > I dislike "disabled" because it's vague: every check that's not enabled is disabled, but only a few of them are mentioned here.
> > 
> > I'd suggest BadlyBehavedTidyChecks or UnusableTidyChecks...
> > As a minor drive-by comment, the function should also be marked static and placed outside of the anonymous namespace (per our usual coding style).
> 
> That's what we do when working in llvm and clang, but convention around clangd is putting implementation details in anon namespaces. I would rather not stray from it here.
> 
> 
> As for the general naming issues, i went with `UnusableTidyChecks`.
> That's what we do when working in llvm and clang, but convention around clangd is putting implementation details in anon namespaces. I would rather not stray from it here.

It's unfortunate that clangd decided to stray from the community standards like this, but thank you for letting me know -- I agree it should match the local style.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D83224/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D83224