[PATCH] D92652: [clang-tidy][docs] Update check options with boolean values instead of non-zero/0/1

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.

LGTM, thank you for this cleanup!



================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-not-null-terminated-result.rst:60
 - If copy to the destination array can overflow [1] and
-  ``AreSafeFunctionsAvailable`` is set to ``Yes``, ``y`` or non-zero and it is
+  ``AreSafeFunctionsAvailable`` is set to `true` and it is
   possible to obtain the capacity of the destination array then the new function
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > This edit loses information about also accepting `Yes` and `y` -- is that intentional (or were those unsupported before)?
> > 
> > FWIW, I'd be fine dropping support for alternate spellings of `true`.
> Having looked throughout the NotNullTerminatedResultCheck header/impl files, I can't find any reference to `AreSafeFunctionsAvailable`.
> I can only guess this is meant to say WantToUseSafeFunctions. If that is the case, `Yes` and `y` were never supported spellings.
> 
> Should this be changed to use that option name instead? cc @Charusso
> 
> FWIW I intend (in the near future) to extend boolean parsing for check options to:
> `y|Y|yes|Yes|YES|true|True|TRUE|on|On|ON`
> `n|N|no|No|NO|false|False|FALSE|off|Off|OFF`.
> 
> Reason for this is we claim to use YAML for config format and according to its specification, this is what is accepted as a boolean value. Ref https://yaml.org/type/bool.html.
> Still need to keep the old integer method of specifying bools for backwards compatibility reasons.
> 
> Should this be changed to use that option name instead? cc @Charusso

I think so, but that can be done in an NFC followup if you'd like.

> Reason for this is we claim to use YAML for config format and according to its specification, this is what is accepted as a boolean value.

Oh, that's a good reason to support those spellings, thank you for clarifying.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D92652/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D92652