[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D71963#1800102 , @sylvestre.ledru wrote: > ok, thanks! > I will remove them tomorrow or the next day. > > Do you have any guidance about the next steps to add them back? Yes, sorry about failing to talk about it! I thi

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

sylvestre.ledru added a comment. @aaron.ballman done in https://reviews.llvm.org/D72049 By the way, when you say: > There are other models that exist and are maintained. > Other models are also pretty good. which lists do you have in mind? thanks Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHAN

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

sylvestre.ledru abandoned this revision. sylvestre.ledru added a comment. ok, thanks! I will remove them tomorrow or the next day. Do you have any guidance about the next steps to add them back? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71963/n

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D71963#1800087 , @sylvestre.ledru wrote: > OK, do you want me to prepare a patch to remove the severities? > or to update the values using another list? I think we should remove the severities from the table for now. T

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

sylvestre.ledru added a comment. OK, do you want me to prepare a patch to remove the severities? or to update the values using another list? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71963/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71963 ___

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D71963#1800056 , @sylvestre.ledru wrote: > > I may have missed this in prior discussions, and if so, I'm sorry -- but > > why are we taking CodeChecker as the model for this? > > I went ahead and use it because: > > - it

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

sylvestre.ledru added a comment. > I may have missed this in prior discussions, and if so, I'm sorry -- but why > are we taking CodeChecker as the model for this? I went ahead and use it because: - it is there and maintained (I contributed to the list a few time) - it is pretty good from my exp

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

vingeldal added a comment. In D71963#1799956 , @aaron.ballman wrote: > I may have missed this in prior discussions, and if so, I'm sorry -- but why > are we taking CodeChecker as the model for this? I'm not opposed to having > some notion of severity fo

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

aaron.ballman added a comment. I may have missed this in prior discussions, and if so, I'm sorry -- but why are we taking CodeChecker as the model for this? I'm not opposed to having some notion of severity for our checks (basically every tool and many coding standards have the same concept), b

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

whisperity added a comment. @vingeldal Apologies, in that case. However, I would still claim that `style` (as a //potential// severity) has its purpose for Tidy checkers, not just for `clang-format`. In D71963#1798871 , @vingeldal wrote: > If severity

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

vingeldal added a comment. @whisperity I think you misunderstood my comment. I was not trying to give a more correct description of the current definition of style-level severity in CodeChecker. I was trying to propose **new** definitions of the different severity levels that this patch propose

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

whisperity added a comment. In D71963#1798199 , @vingeldal wrote: > - Style: things that are handled by clang-format rather than clang-tidy. This is not true, for two reasons. The shorter answer: In case it was true, the "severity category" `STYLE` woul

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

aaron.ballman added a comment. In D71963#1798212 , @sylvestre.ledru wrote: > I do agree that they are subjective and not perfect. > > However, I found the classification extremely useful when you look at the > results on big projects. > I have been usin

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

sylvestre.ledru added a comment. I do agree that they are subjective and not perfect. However, I found the classification extremely useful when you look at the results on big projects. I have been using codechecker (where the severities are coming from) for Firefox and its has been extremely us

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

vingeldal added a comment. It's very hard to write these kinds of definitions without ambiguity and plenty of subjective interpretation creeping in. I'll try my best to provide constructive feedback but I'm admittedly struggling a bit with providing helpful counter proposals. Ideally these leve

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

aaron.ballman added a comment. I think this is a reasonable first-pass at the severity descriptions, but do you think we should add some words that tell the user to use whatever severity is picked by a coding standard if one is being followed? For instance, the CERT rules all come with a severi

[PATCH] D71963: clang-tidy doc: Add the severities description

sylvestre.ledru created this revision. sylvestre.ledru added reviewers: dkrupp, aaron.ballman. Herald added subscribers: rnkovacs, whisperity. Herald added a project: clang. I took the text from codechecker. Daniel Krupp ( @dkrupp ) wrote it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo https://review