-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.4k
[clang-tidy] Refactor: removed typos in 'AllowedTypes' option in various checks #122957
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
nicovank
merged 3 commits into
llvm:main
from
vbvictor:clang-tidy-refactor-allowed-types-option
Jan 29, 2025
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@EugeneZelenko should other single ticks also be replaced by double ticks?
For reference, generated HTML: https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/performance/for-range-copy.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Single back-ticks are for option names and values. Double back-ticks for language constructs. Since
Ref,ref, etc. refers to types, double-ticks should be used.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you 👍 @vbvictor Can you please also make this change?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nicovank, yes, I can make this change.
As far as I understand only Ref, ref, Reference and reference should be changed but not [Rr]ef(erence)?$.
It got a little tricky for me since Ref only refers to a suffix of a potential c++ type, so it doesn't fall into the double back-ticks category.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO it also makes sense to double tick the regex (so everything here). Probably slightly easier on the eyes as a code block when generated than an italicized string.,
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Corrected to double-ticks plus found and fixed one more file with same errors:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/assert-side-effect.rst.