refactor: use lock_guard instead of unique_lock when available #398
+21
−19
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
HuaHuaY
commented
Dec 6, 2025
|
|
||
| /// \brief Destructor | ||
| ~TableMetadataBuilder(); | ||
| ~TableMetadataBuilder() override; |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find a warning here that it misses override.
wgtmac
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow the answer in stackoverflow https://stackoverflow.com/a/60172828/11568166
lock_guardif you need to lock exactly 1 mutex for an entire scope.scoped_lockif you need to lock a number of mutexes that is not exactly 1.unique_lockif you need to unlock within the scope of the block (which includes use with a condition_variable).So let clang-tidy only report
modernize-use-scoped-lockwarning when there are multiplelock_guard.