I'd vote to keep as well. - Dan
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Adar Dembo <a...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Personally I haven't seen much of a need for abbreviated parameter > names. I'd vote for keeping the warning. > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > How do people feel about this warning? > > > > warning: function 'kudu::InsertLoadgen::InserterThread' has a definition > > with different parameter names > > [readability-inconsistent-declaration-parameter-name] > > void InserterThread(Generator::Mode gen_mode, int64_t seed, > > ^ > > gen_seed > > src/kudu/tools/insert-generated-rows.cc:307:21: note: the definition > seen > > here > > void InsertLoadgen::InserterThread(Generator::Mode gen_mode, int64_t > > gen_seed, > > ^ > > src/kudu/tools/insert-generated-rows.cc:234:8: note: differing > parameters > > are named here: ('seed'), in definition: ('gen_seed') > > void InserterThread(Generator::Mode gen_mode, int64_t seed, > > > > > > Is it a reasonable one to keep, or should I disable it? On the one hand, > it > > might catch a bug where the order of parameters is swapped between the > > definition and declaration, or where you forgot to update the name when > > changing the definition. On the other hand, sometimes it can make sense > to > > have an "abbreviated" parameter name in the function definition. > > > > -Todd > > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Adar Dembo <a...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > >> OK, let's keep it then. I changed the comment in question to be > >> "TODO(KUDU-1537)...". > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Jake Farrell <jfarr...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > we use "TODO(bug id or committer id): msg" as the format in other > >> projects > >> > and that seems to be enough breadcrumb in most cases > >> > > >> > -Jake > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Adar Dembo <a...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > In https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/4435/, Tidy Bot said: > >> >> > > >> >> > Line 209: // TODO: Should be fixed with Exactly Once > semantics, > >> >> > see KUDU-1537. > >> >> > warning: missing username/bug in TODO [google-readability-todo] > >> >> > // TODO: Should be fixed with Exactly Once semantics, see > >> >> KUDU-1537. > >> >> > ^ > >> >> > // TODO(unknown): Should be fixed with Exactly Once > semantics, > >> >> > see KUDU-1537. > >> >> > > >> >> > This doesn't look like the kind of style change we want, right? > >> >> > Historically we don't annotate our TODOs with names. > >> >> > > >> >> > Or should I reformat it as "TODO(KUDU-1537)..." ? > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Yea, I think TODO(bug#) is a good policy to try to have moving > forward, > >> but > >> >> I don't think we have to be religious about it. I can turn off this > tidy > >> >> check if we think it's not worth it with a codebase of our size. > >> >> > >> >> This guideline comes from Google ( > >> >> https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#TODO_Comments) > where > >> >> they > >> >> say: > >> >> > >> >> TODOs should include the string TODO in all caps, followed by the > name, > >> >> e-mail address, bug ID, or other identifier of the person or issue > with > >> the > >> >> best context about the problem referenced by the TODO. The main > purpose > >> is > >> >> to have a consistent TODO that can be searched to find out how to get > >> more > >> >> details upon request. A TODO is not a commitment that the person > >> referenced > >> >> will fix the problem. Thus when you create a TODO with a name, it is > >> almost > >> >> always your name that is given. > >> >> It's sort of nice to leave a breadcrumb, but it's also not too hard > for > >> >> someone to 'git blame' and figure out who added it, so I could go > either > >> >> way. > >> >> > >> >> -Todd > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > Hey folks, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I've set up a jenkins job and gerrit trigger to run > clang-tidy-diff > >> on > >> >> > any > >> >> > > patches that are uploaded. It should be set up now so as not to > >> vote +1 > >> >> > or > >> >> > > -1, but just to produce comments. For an example of the type of > >> >> warnings > >> >> > it > >> >> > > generates, check out: > >> >> > > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/4409/4/src/kudu/consensus/ > >> >> > raft_consensus_state.h > >> >> > > > >> >> > > If you see any checks that you think are false positives, feel > free > >> to > >> >> > ping > >> >> > > me and I can either disable those checks entirely, or see if > there's > >> >> some > >> >> > > configuration we can make to better match our own guidelines. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Hopefully this turns out to be a useful bit of "automatic code > >> review" > >> >> so > >> >> > > that we can focus our review efforts less on mechanical checks > and > >> more > >> >> > on > >> >> > > things requiring human judgment :) If it turns out to be more of > an > >> >> > > annoyance than a help, we can always remove it or really dial > back > >> to > >> >> > only > >> >> > > the most important warnings. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Also worth noting that these checks are not that complicated to > >> write, > >> >> so > >> >> > > if we see that there are some Kudu-specific ones worth > >> implementing, we > >> >> > can > >> >> > > easily do so. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > -Todd > >> >> > > -- > >> >> > > Todd Lipcon > >> >> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Todd Lipcon > >> >> Software Engineer, Cloudera > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Todd Lipcon > > Software Engineer, Cloudera >