[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy] `bugprone-unchecked-optional-access`: handle `BloombergLP::bdlb:NullableValue::makeValue` to prevent false-positives (PR #144313)

[Valentyn Yukhymenko via cfe-commits]

BaLiKfromUA wrote:

@haoNoQ sorry for late reply, want to respond to this idea!

I agree that attribute-based solution gives much more flexibility and could benefit not only `bugprone-unchecked-optional-access` check but also to the other existing and future clang-tidy checks.

> But, of course, that's a matter of a much broader discussion. I don't think your work should be blocked on implementing any of this. I'm just saying that you're not alone in this struggle 😅

**If I were interested in starting such a discussion, what would be the right process to follow?** 

>From what I understand, it might begin with an RFC on Discourse — but since this is related to introducing new attributes, it seems like it could also involve the broader Clang community, not just clang-tidy.

Will be interested to hear your opinion on this process, so I can access my capacity and the scope of work!

Thanks!

cc @vbvictor 


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144313