Should this repo lint C++ code with clang-tidy or cpplint?

[cclauss]

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/intellisense-code-linter-for-cpp
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/code-analysis-with-clang-tidy-in-visual-studio
https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang-tools-extra/tree/master/clang-tidy

v.s.

https://github.com/TheAlgorithms/C-Plus-Plus/blob/master/.github/workflows/cpplint.yml
https://github.com/cpplint/cpplint

[kvedala]

The following points are suggestions for discussion and by no means any imposition

clang-tidy would be the ideal way to perform static code analysis for this repo as it can be automated fairly easily. I second your suggestion.
Regarding its implementation:

• a lot of the existing code already fails to either compile or follow the style protocol
• I suggest this change be made once the current errors in the repo are fixed (Major rework to improve code quality and add automation checks #805 which addresses this exact problem)
• .github/workflows/awesome_forkflow.yml attempts to structure the CI implementation flow checking for both static code analysis followed by compilation on multiple platforms

[kvedala]

The checks by clang-tidy and clang-format though quite extensive and flexible, the existing source code is so badly structured that it has been almost impossible to get the repo working well. I have made a preliminary implementation in a branch in my fork - eb4114e

It can, like the cpplint, be implemented only on the new pull-requests but this will end up making the already inconsistent repository even more chaotic. I suggest that the existing repo and the code therein be first normalized as in #805 thereby ensuring that all code does follow at least one standard. The enhancements can then be applied much more easily thereafter.