cjdb added a comment. That test is kinda problematic because it seems that the artifacts aren't ordered. I think we should change this from a
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Sarif.cpp:314-317 + llvm::sort(*Artifacts, [](const json::Value &x, const json::Value &y) { + return x.getAsObject()->getNumber("index") < + y.getAsObject()->getNumber("index"); + }); ---------------- I'm wondering if I should instead copy `CurrentArtifacts` to a vector and sort prior to insertion, rather than in post. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/SARIFDiagnostic.cpp:214 void SARIFDiagnostic::emitIncludeLocation(FullSourceLoc Loc, PresumedLoc PLoc) { - assert(false && "Not implemented in SARIF mode"); + SarifRule Rule = SarifRule::create().setRuleId(std::to_string(-1)); + Rule = addDiagnosticLevelToRule(Rule, DiagnosticsEngine::Level::Note); ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Why do we want -1 as the rule ID and... can we use `"-1"` instead of doing a > string conversion? lol at obvious C++ goof. Re -1, there doesn't seem to be a diagnostic associated with this note, so I picked a value that I know isn't in use. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D145201/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D145201 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits