refactor: Clang tidy fixes

[paulgessinger]

This PR adds fixes for

• readability-container-size-empty
• modernize-use-override
• modernize-use-equals-default
• readability-implicit-bool-cast
• readability-implicit-bool-conversion

because they're fairly easy to do, and can be problematic.

Also improves the reporting. #1306 should be merged first.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1308 (9f0faad) into main (9f03bc9) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 33.33%.

❗ Current head 9f0faad differs from pull request most recent head 9f4de8c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 9f4de8c to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1308      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.45%   47.44%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         375      375              
  Lines       19778    19779       +1     
  Branches     9273     9274       +1     
==========================================
  Hits         9385     9385              
  Misses       4010     4010              
- Partials     6383     6384       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
Core/src/EventData/PrintParameters.cpp	25.71% <0.00%> (ø)
Core/src/Geometry/TrackingGeometry.cpp	45.94% <0.00%> (ø)
Core/src/Geometry/TrackingVolume.cpp	43.45% <0.00%> (-0.14%)	⬇️
Core/src/Geometry/Layer.cpp	57.57% <33.33%> (ø)
Core/src/Visualization/GeometryView3D.cpp	32.85% <50.00%> (ø)
Core/src/Geometry/GeometryIdentifier.cpp	61.53% <100.00%> (ø)

📣 Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

[Corentin-Allaire]

Looks great, thanks for adding this ! Do I understand properly that the rules that have been added will now be checked by clang_tidy ?

Unrelated comment but looking at the modification I noticed in multiple place in the code we use and instead &&, could/should we add some option to clang_tidy to standardize this ?

[paulgessinger]

Hey @Corentin-Allaire, indeed the CI should now enforce these rules.

I'm not aware it's possible in clang-tidy to flag && vs and etc. I don't think clang-format can do it either.

[andiwand]

I didn't even know that not, and, or exist in C/C++. had to google to see that they are a relic of C. not sad to seem them go 😄

[Corentin-Allaire]

I didn't even know that not, and, or exist in C/C++. hat to google to see that they are a relic of C. not sad to seem them go 😄

You mean ! sad ;) They have always been part of the standard (apparently the reason being that some weird keyboard don't have those symbols). They have ton al alternative symbole in C++ in the same style you can replace { } by <% %> if you want to mess with people :)