[PATCH] D146655: [clang-tidy] Ignore DISABLED_ in test suite name in google-avoid-underscore-in-googletest-name

Fri Mar 24 07:14:34 PDT 2023

Eugene.Zelenko added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:237

+- Fixed an issue in :doc:`google-avoid-underscore-in-googletest-name
+  <clang-tidy/checks/google/avoid-underscore-in-googletest-name>` when using
----------------
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > > > carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > > > > > PiotrZSL wrote:
> > > > > > > carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > > > > > > > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Please keep alphabetical order (by check name) in this section.
> > > > > > > > I was planning to do that but noticed that the alphabetical order is already broken. It seems to be a source of friction and there's no official documentation that states it should be done like that, so I can understand if it gets broken often. Do you know if this is documented somewhere? If not, do we see value in keeping this convention? I suppose now we would need an NFC patch to fix the order again, causing churn.
> > > > > > > I run into same issue also. I would say, let leave it as it is, and fix it with one commit at the end of release.
> > > > > > Good idea, let's do that!
> > > > > Often it's also broken after rebases which may be automatic.
> > > > Anyway, some kind of order is much better than disorder.
> > > Definitely. Could we stick to some simple convention? For example always append or prepend to the list of modifications to checks. Then before release we put up a patch for reordering.
> > I think it will be harder to reader. Sorting by check name is much better in this respect. And this was used in many releases.
> To clarify, what I mean is:
> 
> - Apply a simple convention (e.g. append or prepend to the list) //while developing//.
> - Right before creating a release, put up a patch to sort alphabetically. Then it will be easy to read for users when it's released.
> 
> Or do you mean that the list shall be alphabetically sorted at all times?
It'll be much easier to sort partially sorted list at release time than completely unsorted.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146655/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146655