Endill added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/SARIFDiagnostic.cpp:51-52 + Diag->getDiags()->getDiagnosticIDs()->getStableName(Diag->getID()).str(); + std::replace(StableName.begin(), StableName.end(), '_', '.'); + SarifRule Rule = SarifRule::create().setRuleId(StableName); ---------------- vaibhav.y wrote: > cjdb wrote: > > denik wrote: > > > ยง3.5.4 says that the hierarchical strings are separated by "/". > > > > > > But more generally, are diagnostic names really fall under "hierarchical" > > > definition? > > > Words between underscores should be treated as components. And $3.27.5 > > > says that the leading components have to be the identifier of the rule. > > > In some cases they look like valid components, e.g. `err_access`, > > > `err_access_dtor`, `err_access_dtor_exception`. > > > But in cases like `err_cannot_open_file` neither of the leading > > > components exists. > > > > > > Theoretically we could use groups as the leading component for warnings > > > for example. For errors the leading components are probably not even > > > necessary, since if I understood correctly they are needed to suppress > > > subsets of violations on the SARIF consumer side. > > > Or we just could keep the names with underscores as is. WDYT? > > I think in light of what you've said, changing back to underscores is > > probably best. > > But more generally, are diagnostic names really fall under "hierarchical" > > definition? > > I have the same concern, but this is okay for a first pass as a "flat > hierarchy" :) > > If we want a deeper structure, we'll need some extra metadata in > `DiagnosticSemaKinds.td`'s `Error<...>` to add cluster names as a follow up > to this. > > WDYT about something like `clang/visibility/err_access` or > `clang/syntax/err_stmtexpr_file_scope`. > > Alternatively: we could draw from the c++ standard structure: > https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#term.odr.use and say the error code for > an ODR violation could be `clang/basic/def/odr`, again I'm unsure how well > this meshes with clang's diagnostic model. > Alternatively: we could draw from the c++ standard structure: > https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#term.odr.use and say the error code for > an ODR violation could be clang/basic/def/odr, again I'm unsure how well this > meshes with clang's diagnostic model. The only reliable thing there are stable clause names like `[namespace.udecl]`, because there are precedents of them being rearranged in the table of contents ([[ https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/commit/982a456f176ca00409c6e514af932051dce2485f | 1 ]], [[ https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/commit/3c580cd204fde95a21de1830ace75d14d429f845 | 2 ]]). We've got bitten by that in C++ conformance tests, which use table of contents for directory hierarchy. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146654/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146654 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
