At the moment, we have not added anything to our .clang-tidy config file that doesn't apply to the whole codebase. That is to say, we are clang-tidy green (but for a recent errant semicolon after a member fn decl).
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > On Kudu we've hooked it up as a precommit, but without any "vote". That is > to say, it will add a gerrit comment with any warnings/diagnostics, but > doesn't add a '-1' which prevents merge. This has been useful for pointing > out style issues or missed optimizations, but we've been able to adopt it > gradually without a big-bang "tidy everything" kind of commit which can be > disruptive to in-flight patches. > > Typically we expect patch contributors to address the review comments from > clang-tidy just like they'd address review comments from a human reviewer > (which might include ignoring the comment if it's just some code that was > moved from one place to another rather than new code) > > Here's an example of the type of comments it leaves: > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/5252/1/src/kudu/master/catalog_manager.cc@3296 > > -Todd > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> Also, individual warning can be suppressed with "// NOLINT" (or with >> "#pragma clang diagnostic ignored" for tidy checks that are also >> compiler warnings) >> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Sailesh Mukil <sail...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On 29 November 2016 at 08:06, Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Should we add to our pre-merge testing (aka GVM, aka GVO) some tests >> >> > that don't run impalad, but only build it or check for correctness? >> >> > >> >> > For instance: >> >> > >> >> > 1. bin/run_clang_tidy.sh - should we force our code to always be >> >> > clang-tidy? >> >> > >> >> >> >> I don't have enough experience of the tool to know if this likely to be >> a >> >> help or hindrance. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > +1 for this. My opinion is unless we foresee some patches that would fail >> > clang-tidy but still be considered a valid patch by us, we should have >> this >> > as a pre-commit test. >> > >> >> >> >> > 2. bin/check-rat-report.py - uses Apache RAT to check that our code >> >> > has proper license headers >> >> > >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > 3. Other buildall.sh options - in the past we have broken -asan, >> >> > -release, or -so without breaking the pre-commit test. >> >> > >> >> >> >> If all can be tested for 'free' wrt to wall-clock-time, then sure. But >> if >> >> that's not possible, I'd only consider building -release, and maybe not >> >> even that. -asan failures are infrequent enough that I don't expect it >> to >> >> be worth the extra time it would add to the pre-commit build. >> >> >> >> -so is less important to me. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > 4. Docs build >> >> > >> >> > I think I can do these without increasing the end-to-end time it takes >> >> > to run the tests, by doing them in parallel. One issue I see is that >> >> > committers who see their change as minor and merge it manually, >> >> > without pre-merge testing, might break clang-tidy or RAT tests. >> >> > >> >> >> >> For that reason, perhaps a separate docs build makes the most sense. >> >> >> > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera
