[PATCH] D127446: [clang-tidy] Add `-verify-config` command line argument

[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!



================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/infrastructure/verify-config.cpp:12
+
+// CHECK-VERIFY-DAG: command-line option '-config': warning: Unknown Check 'readability-else-after-ret'; did you mean 'readability-else-after-return'
+// CHECK-VERIFY-DAG: command-line option '-config': warning: Unknown Check Option 'modernize-lop-convert.UseCxx20ReverseRanges'; did you mean 'modernize-loop-convert.UseCxx20ReverseRanges'
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > njames93 wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > It's unfortunate that `warning: ` appears in the middle of the diagnostic as opposed to at the start. I wonder if this can be reworked to say: `warning: Unknown check 'whatever'; did you mean 'whatever'? [-verify-config]` or something?
> > > > 
> > > > Also, no test coverage for the error case and for the unknown check case where there's no closest match worth talking about.
> > > Warning appearing in the middle is kind of by design as when clang emits diagnostics, the source location is the first thing emitted, then the type(warning|error). In this case `command-line option '-config'` is the "source location"
> > > 
> > > > Also, no test coverage for the error case.
> > > I'm not 100% on that, there is no checking when the check glob is actually built and I haven't figured out how to break it.
> > >  then the type(warning|error). In this case command-line option '-config' is the "source location"
> > 
> > Ah, thanks for explaining your logic. FWIW, Clang uses a different style for that (`<command line>`): https://godbolt.org/z/f1rdsbjqe Perhaps we should follow suit? (In fact, we could use the diagnostic engine for this instead of emitting to the error stream ourselves?)
> The issue is, we don't have the actual source information right now to print better error messages.
After some off-list discussion (thanks @njames93!) I'm retracting my concerns here for the moment because there are larger issues with the diagnostics engine to be solved first.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D127446/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D127446