aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyCheck.h:183
+
+ /// Adds a diagnostic to report errors in the checks configuration.
+ DiagnosticBuilder
----------------
checks -> check's
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp:276
+ // Never ignore these.
+ } else if (!Context.isCheckEnabled(Error.DiagnosticName) &&
+ Error.DiagLevel != ClangTidyError::Error) {
----------------
Perhaps this is a bad idea, but would it make sense to have `isCheckEnabled()`
report `true` for `clang-tidy-config`? It's not really a check, so that's a bit
odd, but it seems like anywhere we're testing this property we wouldn't want to
ignore config issues?
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.h:102
+
+ /// Report any errors to do with reading configuration using this method
+ DiagnosticBuilder
----------------
with reading configuration -> with reading the configuration
and add a full stop to the end of the comment.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91885/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91885
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
