[PATCH] D126134: [clang-tidy] Improve add_new_check.py to recognize more checks

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

LGTM, thank you!



================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/add_new_check.py:335-336
+    module_file = get_module_filename(module_path, module_name)
+    if not os.path.isfile(module_file):
+      return ''
+    with io.open(module_file, 'r') as f:
----------------
LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Do we have to check this or can we rely on open failing because it's not a file? (It tripped my psychic TOCTOU sensor.)
> > If we don't check here, then it throws an exception when attempting to open the file.
> Also, I was following the existing pattern in this file `:)`
Sounds like a good reason to leave it in then, thanks!


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/add_new_check.py:352
+      stmt = code[stmt_start_pos+1:stmt_end_pos]
+      matches = re.search('registerCheck<([^>:]*)>\(\s*"([^"]*)"\s*\)', stmt)
+      if matches and matches[2] == full_check_name:
----------------
LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > It's a bit early for me to fully grok regex, but: is this going to handle line continuations/newlines okay? I don't know if those show up in cases that matter right now, but I wanted to make sure it was being thought about.
> > `\s` matches any single whitespace character and `\s*` matches zero or more whitespace characters.  I could sprinkle some more in between tokens, but this catches the existing code correctly.
> There is some code like this: `CheckFactories.registerCheck<bugprone::UnhandledSelfAssignmentCheck>("cert-oop54-cpp");` and I intentionally omit searching for this (`[^:>]*`) because these are aliases for other checks.
> 
> Which makes me wonder if we want to explicitly register aliases differently from regular checks?  If you want to run a list of checks and exclude aliases (so the check doesn't run twice), how do you do that?
> Which makes me wonder if we want to explicitly register aliases differently from regular checks? If you want to run a list of checks and exclude aliases (so the check doesn't run twice), how do you do that?

You can't, which was the subject of https://reviews.llvm.org/D114317 but it's complicated in practice.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D126134/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D126134