Details
Diff Detail
Event Timeline
clang-tidy/abseil/DurationDoubleConversionCheck.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
48 ↗ | (On Diff #183945) | Please run Clang-format. |
docs/ReleaseNotes.rst | ||
85 | Finds and fixes. Please use `` for language constructs. Same in documentation. | |
docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil-duration-double-conversion.rst | ||
20 ↗ | (On Diff #183945) | Unnecessary empty line. |
27 ↗ | (On Diff #183945) | Unnecessary empty line. |
Address reviewer comments.
docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil-duration-double-conversion.rst | ||
---|---|---|
20 ↗ | (On Diff #183945) | This is consistent with other documentation in this directory, such as abseil-faster-strsplit-delimiter.rst. |
docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil-duration-double-conversion.rst | ||
---|---|---|
28 ↗ | (On Diff #184143) | Please use `` for language constructs. Same below. |
docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil-duration-double-conversion.rst | ||
---|---|---|
28 ↗ | (On Diff #184143) | Thanks; I thought I'd caught them all. |
docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil-duration-double-conversion.rst | ||
---|---|---|
20 ↗ | (On Diff #183945) | In your example abseil-faster-strsplit-delimiter.rst , The double blank line in the html doesn't give much delineation between the before and after code and the next example. There probably isn't a convention per say (which is a shame), across the docs we do a mixture of different styles https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-braces-around-statements.html But there is a desire by some of the regular clang-tidy reviewers to make the documentation consistent It may not be ideal but the "Before/After" style, that is used in modernize-use-emplace, modernize-use-using,readability-braces-around-statements,readability-identifier-naming and readability-redundant-function-ptr-dereference does help a little. I'm not saying looks better, but I've added a couple of examples of formatting the strsplit example for comparison, feel free to ignore. |
docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil-duration-double-conversion.rst | ||
---|---|---|
20 ↗ | (On Diff #183945) | I like those examples! Would it be reasonable to update all of the abseil-duration-* documentation in a separate pass, after this change is submitted? |
docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil-duration-double-conversion.rst | ||
---|---|---|
20 ↗ | (On Diff #183945) | If it means the documentation gets better in the long run, I'm fine with that, its mainly a Nit on my part. |
The code looks good, but I have a concern about the check name -- double seems a confusing word, see my comment.
clang-tidy/abseil/DurationDoubleConversionCheck.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
27 ↗ | (On Diff #184146) | nit: s => S; might be inline the Scales? |
51 ↗ | (On Diff #184146) | The double word may cause confusion easily -- at the first glance, I thought that it means convert the absl::Duration to the double type, but it turned out not.. How about using abseil-duration-necessary-conversion? |
@hokein Thanks for the suggestion on the name, I was looking for something a little less confusing.
also avoid double word in the message.