[PATCH] D54943: [clang-tidy] implement const-transformation for cppcoreguidelines-const-correctness

[Richard via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

LegalizeAdulthood added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines-const-correctness-transform-pointer-as-values.cpp:12
+  // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: variable 'p_local0' of type 'double *' can be declared 'const'
+  // CHECK-FIXES: const
+}
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> JonasToth wrote:
> > 0x8000-0000 wrote:
> > > LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> > > > Shouldn't this validate that the `const` was placed in the correct position?
> > > > e.g. `const double *` is a different meaning from `double *const`
> > > > 
> > > > Apply to all the other `CHECK-FIXES` as well
> > > Can we have the checker merged in first, then we can worry about the automatic fixer?
> > the checker is its own utility with its own tests and proper test coverage.
> > yes `const double*` and `double* const` are different and are correctly inserted, but that is not tested here, but here: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang-tools-extra/unittests/clang-tidy/AddConstTest.cpp
> > 
> > Similar to the actual `const` analysis. That has its own test-suite (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/unittests/Analysis/ExprMutationAnalyzerTest.cpp)
> > 
> > The tests here are concerned with the diagnostics and "real" code. Afterall, this functionality is too complex to have all of it checked with these kind of tests.
> > I think the separate testing in specialized unit-tests (as is now) for the specialized functions is the right approach and the `CHECK-FIXES` are not necessary in this instance, maybe even bad, because it makes the tests unclearer.
> sry: The _fixer_ is its own utility ...
> 
> Additionally: The test is run on big projects with transformation (LLVM, some Qt Stuff).
> First everything is transformed and then recompiled. The compiler tells what was incorrectly inserted :)
> 
> Thats part of the testing too.
> The tests here are concerned with the diagnostics and "real" code.

OK, great!  I didn't realize it was covered by unit tests,
which is perfectly fine with me `:)`


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D54943/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D54943