tree 283b94e015e8ddc3c335ceee3fa36151c2a3ff96
parent 50386fe1db3ce57f762c9621b83445a4ffd80b26
author Jens Massberg <massberg@google.com> 1618244729 +0200
committer Alexander Kornienko <alexfh@google.com> 1618245972 +0200

[clang-tidy] Add option to ignore macros in readability-function-cognitive-complexity check.

(this was originally part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D96281 and has been split off into its own patch)

If a macro is used within a function, the code inside the macro
doesn't make the code less readable. Instead, for a reader a macro is
more like a function that is called. Thus the code inside a macro
shouldn't increase the complexity of the function in which it is called.
Thus the flag 'IgnoreMacros' is added. If set to 'true' code inside
macros isn't considered during analysis.

This isn't perfect, as now the code of a macro isn't considered at all,
even if it has a high cognitive complexity itself. It might be better if
a macro is considered in the analysis like a function and gets its own
cognitive complexity. Implementing such an analysis seems to be very
complex (if possible at all with the given AST), so we give the user the
option to either ignore macros completely or to let the expanded code
count to the calling function's complexity.

See the code example from vgeof (originally added as note in https://reviews.llvm.org/D96281)

   bool doStuff(myClass* objectPtr){
         if(objectPtr == nullptr){
             LOG_WARNING("empty object");
             return false;
         }
         if(objectPtr->getAttribute() == nullptr){
             LOG_WARNING("empty object");
             return false;
         }
         use(objectPtr->getAttribute());
     }

The LOG_WARNING macro itself might have a high complexity, but it do not make the
the function more complex to understand like e.g. a 'printf'.

By default 'IgnoreMacros' is set to 'false', which is the original behavior of the check.

Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, alexfh

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98070