ymandel marked 4 inline comments as done. ymandel added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/TransformerClangTidyCheck.cpp:46 + + StringRef Message = "no explanation"; + if (Case.Explanation) { ---------------- ilya-biryukov wrote: > The users will see this for every case without explanation, right? > I'd expect the rules without explanation to be somewhat common, maybe don't > show any message at all in that case? There's no option to call `diag()` without a message. We could pass an empty string , but that may be confusing given the way the message is concatenated here: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp#L204 So, no matter what, there will be some message to go w/ the diagnostic. I figure that being explicit about the lack of explanation is better than an empty string, but don't feel strongly about this. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/TransformerClangTidyCheck.h:1 +//===---------- TransformerClangTidyCheck.h - clang-tidy ------------------===// +// ---------------- ilya-biryukov wrote: > NIT: maybe use `TransformerCheck` for brevity? I'm not a `clang-tidy` > maintainer, though, so not sure whether that aligns with the rest of the code. It was TransformerTidy and Dmitri suggested I be explicit. I think TransformerCheck is better than TransformerTidy, but I also see the argument in spelling it out. WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61386/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61386 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits