I don't know the original motivation of this code. Since we never use it, so LGTM :)

fix doxygen comment.

Use check_clang_tidy.

Simplify the code further.

Address comments.

Cleanup.

In rL358576#642184, @alexfh wrote:

A few post-commit comments.

cleanup

Update and rebase.

Thanks, looks better now.
I saw there are still a few undone comments, please mark them done when you address them.

In D59932#1453565, @alexfh wrote:

This looks like a more promising direction. Thanks for the readiness to experiment with this.

See the comments inline.

Remove a stale comment.

Fix apply-replacements, and address comments.

Running out of time today, the patch is not finished yet, but it should be good for another initial review/comments.

Emit the check fix description via diagnostic::note.

As discussed offline, the current approach only works for checks provide a single fix, providing such API is somehow misleading.

In D59932#1446533, @JonasToth wrote:

I think the idea is good and implementation, too. If we iterate all checks anyway (probably?) we could think about adding a severity to the checks, too?

I know that code-checker and code-compass have something like this to signal importance of problems (say bugprone and cert differ from readability for example).

Update the patch:

This is my first attempt, still missing tests, but it should be in a shape to get early feedbacks.

This patch has caused a regression issue, see the test:

In D59759#1441349, @ilya-biryukov wrote:

In D59759#1441321, @hokein wrote:

Do we need to add an entry "onLanguage:cuda" for cuda in the extension package.json?

Yeah, sounds reasonable, but I don't see cuda in the list of languages in VSCode, nor does it auto-detect a language for .cu files for me.
Can those added by extensions (that I might be missing)? What would be the correct way to lookup all available languages?

Do we need to add an entry "onLanguage:cuda" for cuda in the extension package.json?

friendly ping ;)

LGTM

One more comment.

Address comments