[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy] `bugprone-unchecked-optional-access`: Improve handling of value constructors for `bsl::optional` and `bdlb::NullableValue` (PR #224969)

[Jan Voung via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -5,6 +5,32 @@
 
 namespace bsl {
   class string {};
+
+  template <typename T> class optional;
+
+  struct nullopt_t {
+    constexpr explicit nullopt_t() {}
+  };
+
+  constexpr nullopt_t nullopt;
+
+  struct in_place_t {
+    constexpr explicit in_place_t() {}
+  };
+
+  constexpr in_place_t in_place;
+
+  struct allocator_arg_t {
+    constexpr explicit allocator_arg_t() {}
+  };
+
+  constexpr allocator_arg_t allocator_arg;
+
+  /// Mock of the allocator type taken by the allocator-extended constructors.
+  class allocator {};
+
+  template <bool B, class T> struct enable_if {};
----------------
jvoung wrote:

Thanks!

I was wondering about both
- But, right -- after thinking again about the `bsl::optional` case the allocator-awareness would make it different.
- For the `bsl::enable_if` that seemed like it could be replaced more easily. It isn't being matched so it's really only in the test mocks, so not too bad.


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/224969