Skip to content

DM-1189 clang-tidy part 1

Afonso Mukai requested to merge DM-1189_clang-tidy_part_1 into master

Created by: SkyToGround

Description of work

This is PR number 1 of X (where X >= 3). Due to the number of issues found by clang-tidy, I have had to split this into several PR:s. All PRs in this series will have the same description regardless of the changes.

What I have done

  • Applied clang-tidy to the filewriter code base.
  • Fixed many (but not all) of the issues found by clang-tidy.
  • Re-named some variables, functions and class names to better follow the LLVM standard.
  • Added A LOT of const specifiers.
  • Clang-tidy is pretty good about finding dead code. I have thus also cleaned out a few hundred lines of dead, useless or redundant code.
  • Some refactoring due to issues that popped up when removing dead code (unused arguments).

What I have not done

  • I have tried to minimize the number of changes to the Kafka-code (in the KafkaW directory) as that code will probably be replaced soon.
  • I have tried to minimize the number of changes to the logging code as that code will probably be replaced soon.
  • There are relatively few name changes (to follow the LLVM standard) as there are enough code changes to this project as it is already.
  • Functions containing calls to the cli11 and JSON (for Modern C++) libraries were not analysed as clang-tidy crashes on those.
  • Due to me getting tired of doing this, the unit test code has a relatively large number of unfixed minor issues remaining.

Issue

  • Part in closing DM-1189
  • Part in closing DM-1014

Acceptance Criteria

Make sure that the changes are sensible and that they result in no change in functionality.

Unit Tests

No unit tests were changed though a few calls were modified to compile.

Other

N/A

Code Review (To be filled in by the reviewer only)

  • Is the code of an acceptable quality?
  • Do the changes function as described and is it robust?

Nominate for Group Code Review (Anyone can nominate it)

Indicate if you think the code should be reviewed in a Thursday code review session.

  • Recommend for group code review

Also, nominate it on the code_review Slack channel (does someone want to automate this?).

Merge request reports