aaron.ballman added a comment. In D69813#1736045 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813#1736045>, @Charusso wrote:
> In D69813#1735988 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813#1735988>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > I'm not @NoQ, but I do agree that there should be a separate check per rule > > in terms of the UI presented to the user. The name should follow the rule > > ID like they do in clang-tidy, for some consistency there. > > I think that the rule number should be in the name. I'd probably go with > > `cert.STR31-C` or `cert.str31-c` (so it's clear which CERT standard the > > rule came from). > > > We warmly welcome not (@NoQ)s! I think Artem really wanted to start this > direction to make the two tool work together, but I have seen his project is > unbelievably difficult so that it is a little-bit far away, sadly. Even we > are far away to have multiple CERT rules in this package, if the Tidy users > like the code-names, I cannot say no to start the collaboration with Tidy. I > would pick `cert.str.31-c`, as @Szelethus pointed out we use lower-case words > for package names and then we can run every `cert.str` checker at once. Would it make sense to use `cert.str.31.c` to remove the random dash? Would this also help the user to do something like `cert.str.*.cpp`? if they want just the CERT C++ STR rules checked? Or can they do that already even with the `-`? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69813 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
