https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148415
--- Comment #3 from Devansh Varshney <varshney.devansh...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Gabor Kelemen (allotropia) from comment #0) > clang plugin simplifyconstruct did trigger. no need to explicitly init an > instance of "::std::unique_ptr<FileChangedChecker>" with nullptr, just use > default constructor > - explains why is this bad and what to do instead - excellent! This is what I got when I was working on https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/163924/24 (tdf#132007) hence for the aDoc URL I have to follow loplugin:stringviewparam, which recommend replacing const rtl::OUString& parameters with std::u16string_view to promote non-owning views and avoid unnecessary copies at the call site. PasswordDialog::PasswordDialog(weld::Window* pParent, task::PasswordRequestMode nDialogMode, const std::locale& rResLocale, const std::u16string_view aDocURL, bool bIsSimplePasswordRequest) And this bug makes sense as at that time I thought that document URL is not going to change hence I made the change, but now Michael in the comments while reviewing raised question that the subsequent internal conversion from `std::u16string_view` back to a local `rtl::OUString`. If the `stringviewparam` message had briefly mentioned the benefits of `string_view` (e.g., "to avoid potential copies at call site and promote non-owning views for API parameters"), it would have been immediately clearer. It also made me wonder if this check is consistently applied or if its enforcement has become more stringent recently, as I noticed other recent changes to the same file (`passworddlg.cxx`) didn't seem to trigger similar discussions, though perhaps their parameters were different or didn't meet the plugin's trigger conditions? This seems like a valid enhancement and since I faced this, now feel the need of improving these messages. I would like to work on this :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
