Enforce code formatting in PR

[JackPGreen]

In #946 the codebase was reformatted for consistency, but as this was not enforced the codebase has drifted since then.

To avoid this happening again, enforce this at the PR stage.

Testing:

• example failure
• example success
  

Post-merge:

• make a mandatory check

[ihsandemir]

In the example runs shared, the printed error message is not informative enough. It says

./hazelcast/test/src/sql_test.cpp:1795:33: error: code should be clang-formatted [-Wclang-format-violations]
    auto statement = [&result](){
                                ^

But what is the actual problem with that line? Is there a way also print details?

[ihsandemir]

the shared example success actually has a failed step code coverage?

[JackPGreen]

the shared example success actually has a failed step code coverage?

The code coverage is already failing (or at least, flakey) - https://github.com/hazelcast/hazelcast-cpp-client/actions/runs/19500936469/job/55814670258

[JackPGreen]

In the example runs shared, the printed error message is not informative enough. It says

./hazelcast/test/src/sql_test.cpp:1795:33: error: code should be clang-formatted [-Wclang-format-violations]
    auto statement = [&result](){
                                ^

But what is the actual problem with that line? Is there a way also print details?

This is all the information the tool offers. It's just a wrapper around clang-format, (re)formatting the input and then checking the output is the same - if not (i.e. the code was not already formatted) then it raises an error.

It does raise a summary that shows what files have formatting errors.

We already tell contributors to format the code - this is just a test to assert they have:

hazelcast-cpp-client/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md

Lines 7 to 8 in 6d47098

	- Format the code using `clang-format`
	- [`scripts/format-all.sh`](../scripts/format-all.sh) can do this for you

[ihsandemir]

is this action a secure reliable code base?

[JackPGreen]

is this action a secure reliable code base?

I think so, and it's used by many others.

[ihsandemir]

In the example runs shared, the printed error message is not informative enough. It says

./hazelcast/test/src/sql_test.cpp:1795:33: error: code should be clang-formatted [-Wclang-format-violations]
    auto statement = [&result](){
                                ^

But what is the actual problem with that line? Is there a way also print details?

This is all the information the tool offers. It's just a wrapper around clang-format, (re)formatting the input and then checking the output is the same - if not (i.e. the code was not already formatted) then it raises an error.

It does raise a summary that shows what files have formatting errors.

We already tell contributors to format the code - this is just a test to assert they have:

hazelcast-cpp-client/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md

Lines 7 to 8 in 6d47098

	- Format the code using `clang-format`
	- [`scripts/format-all.sh`](../scripts/format-all.sh) can do this for you

Did you consider using:
git clang-format --diff master

This seems to show better about what to be changed and it works on only the changed files compared to master.

[JackPGreen]

In the example runs shared, the printed error message is not informative enough. It says

./hazelcast/test/src/sql_test.cpp:1795:33: error: code should be clang-formatted [-Wclang-format-violations]
    auto statement = [&result](){
                                ^

But what is the actual problem with that line? Is there a way also print details?

This is all the information the tool offers. It's just a wrapper around clang-format, (re)formatting the input and then checking the output is the same - if not (i.e. the code was not already formatted) then it raises an error.
It does raise a summary that shows what files have formatting errors.
We already tell contributors to format the code - this is just a test to assert they have:

hazelcast-cpp-client/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md

Lines 7 to 8 in 6d47098

	- Format the code using `clang-format`
	- [`scripts/format-all.sh`](../scripts/format-all.sh) can do this for you

Did you consider using: git clang-format --diff master

This seems to show better about what to be changed and it works on only the changed files compared to master.

There are a couple with this approach (although yes, the output is nicer):

• we run the PR builder both on pull_request and also workflow_dispatch - when triggered manually, it's difficult to figure out what base to diff against
• I can't find an off-the-shelf action, we'd need to implement our own

I think the net result of both approaches is the same.