clangd-format

[mateosss]

Are you planning on making a clangd-format equivalent? It would be very useful for CI jobs to just download clangd and have both clang-tidy and clang-format options.

In any case, thank you for making this wrapper, it is very useful!

[lljbash]

clang-format is already fast enough, so IMO there’s no strong reason to create a clangd-format solely to avoid typing pip install clang-format.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

[mateosss]

I agree, clang-format is already pretty fast on its own. This would be just to avoid downloading another dependency on each CI run since clangd already embeds clang-format.

[lljbash]

Sounds promising! However, I still need to confirm which option you’re expecting:

1. An extra flag in clangd-tidy to check formatting.
2. A standalone equivalent of clang-format.

The latter would be more complex to implement.

[mateosss]

Option 1 would be great :)

[lljbash]

@mateosss, here is your new feature #10.

If it's not too much trouble, would you mind testing this new version for me? I currently don't have any active C++ projects to work with.

[mateosss]

Thank you very much! I just tried it and it does work :)

One thing to comment is that for now you get something like:

src/myfile.cpp: File does not conform to the formatting rules (run `clang-format` to fix)

But there is no information about what needs change, and the user would still need a separate clang-format binary for that.

Here is an example of how I usually have the CI job for formatting.

The idea is that in the CI output you get both the information that the formating is wrong and exactly where. For this I just run clang-format on everything (pretty fast) and then print the git diff (if there is any diff, the job fails). I think that an option that directly runs the embedded version of clang-format that the clangd binary contains on the file would be enough to achieve this.

In any case, thank you very much for the feature, and as it is it seems to be working.

[lljbash]

The idea is that in the CI output you get both the information that the formating is wrong and exactly where.

This isn’t too hard for me, actually. I already have the "where" information but intentionally omitted it for clarity. I assumed the goal was to identify the files with formatting issues and fix them locally, considering you likely have clang-format on your development machine.

I can add --format, --format-only, and --format-where if you believe the "where" details are essential. But I need to clarify:

1. Do you need line numbers similar to what clang-format provides, or
2. A detailed diff? In the latter case, I recommend waiting for the --fix feature and using it alongside --format-only --fix.

PS. I’m considering not using the -f abbreviation for formatting, as I plan to introduce a --fix feature in the future.

[mateosss]

A detailed diff would be nice. Many times the clang format in the development machine and in the CI can differ and it would be good for external developers that installed the wrong clang-format to know exactly what needs to change for the CI version to pass.

[michaeleisel]

I think names where "clang" is replaced with "clangd" can be harder for people to find. When I google clangd-tidy for example, it autocorrects it to clang-tidy. Also, it can be harder to tell at a glance which one it is, and easier to get confused. It may be good to pick a different name instead of clangd-format if this gets built, and/or rename clangd-tidy.