Ignore template instantiations in the matchers, Addresses readability-simplify-boolean-expr false-positive for bool from template.
This is changing the behavior so that now it will diagnose in header files, no? Why is the correct change to replace this with unless(isInTemplateInstantiation()) instead of adding the new matcher?
It's changing behaviour that arguably shouldn't have been in the first place. But perhaps that change should go on a new patch or update the description of this one
I'll admit that the original code seems a bit suspect to me. I sort of wonder if it was being used to suppress diagnosing macros unless they're considered to be under the user's control. e.g., macros in headers may not be plausible to change but macros in source files are.
If changes should be made here, I don't have strong opinions on whether it requires a separate patch or can be done in this one, but I'd like to better understand why the original code was incorrect (if it is in fact incorrect).
Drat, that matches my digging too. I think the current patch should leave this requirement in place so we can get the bug fix in while we figure out what to do with this bit (assuming the bug fix doesn't rely on this change somehow). If you want to remove the main file requirement in another patch, I'd suggest adding @LegalizeAdulthood as a reviewer to see if they remember why this condition was in place and (I believe) wasn't tested.
Yeah, the restriction to the header file is a bug. It was a misconception on my part when I originally wrote the matcher.
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26332 which should also be fixed by the change here.
I had attempted to make progress on fixing that bug (26332) but some retooling of the testing framework is needed to validate
that the header has a fixit applied to it. I made some progress by refactoring the python script, but as usual it got bogged
down in clang review hell and I haven't had time to make any more forward progress on it.
Excellent, thank you for weighing in! I'm fine with the original version of the patch going in with that modification if you'd like to go that route.
Alternatively, I would be fine waiting until that review is merged and making only the main file expansion fixes.