Improve documentation for --enable=all flag

[preenu91]

Improved help text for --enable=all flag: listed included checks, explained caution, added example usage.

[firewave]

Thanks for your contribution.

This does not feel like an improvement and rather just duplicates the documentation of the other options. And the example is unnecessary and invalid (whitespaces). What was you motivation to adjust this?

The existing wording about the whole program stuff is a bit vague and could be improved though.

[preenu91]

Thanks for the feedback! You’re right — my initial change ended up duplicating information that’s already documented elsewhere, and the example wasn’t necessary.

The main motivation was that the current wording about “whole program” felt vague. I’ve now revised the help text to focus only on clarifying that part, without duplicating other docs.

[firewave]

The main motivation was that the current wording about “whole program” felt vague.

Agreed.

I’ve now revised the help text to focus only on clarifying that part, without duplicating other docs.

I think the all should be like "includes all the following" and leave any specifics to the respective entry.

We should also check what the actual manual/manpage says about this.

I think --help is conveying way too much information and should be very brief. Maybe within the planned CLI option help reworking we should introduce a way to get more details on an option via the CLI by allowing a single option together with --help similar to what other tools offer.

[preenu91]

Thanks, that makes sense. 👍 I’ll adjust the wording to:

--enable=all Enable all the following checks.

Also, I agree that the current --help output is too verbose. Introducing a way to get more detailed help for a single option in a future CLI help rework sounds like a great idea.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[chrchr-github]

I still don't think this is an improvement. Some thoughts:

• the use of 'id' is confusing. Only missingInclude and unusedFunction are ids, the others are severities
• 'messages' -> 'checks'
• 'all' should be below the others
• no need to repeat the information on unusedFunction
• the reference to '--std' is unnecessary