ci: Add check for mathematical constants (no macros)

[AJPfleger]

The firstly intended clang tidy check modernize-use-std-numbers is not suited for us:

• it doesn't flag macros like M_PI
• it flags values in our tables that get close to constants, which have a different basis.

benefit would have been to detect cases like static_cast<float>(std::numbers::pi) instead of std::numbers::pi_v<float> or usages of std::sqrt(2.) instead of std::numbers::sqrt2.

The updated test now checks for the classical M_* macros that could be accidentally used.

blocked:

• refactor: use mathematical constants from std::numbers #3781

[github-actions]

📊: Physics performance monitoring for 6614e7d

Full contents

physmon summary

• ✅ Particles fatras
• ✅ Particles geant4
• ✅ Particles ttbar
• ✅ Vertices ttbar
• ✅ Truth tracking (KF)
• ✅ Truth tracking (GSF)
• ✅ Truth tracking (GX2F)
• ✅ Truth tracking (KF refit)
• ✅ Truth tracking (GSF refit)
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth smeared seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth smeared seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | truth smeared seeding
• ✅ Seeding trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | truth estimated seeding
• ✅ Seeding trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | default seeding
• ✅ Seeding trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | single muon | orthogonal seeding
• ✅ Seeding trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ Ambisolver finding performance | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ IVF notime | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ AMVF gauss notime | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ AMVF grid time | trackfinding | 4 muon x 50 vertices | default seeding
• ✅ Seeding trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ CKF finding performance | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ CKF fitting performance | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ CKF track summary | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ Ambisolver finding performance | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ AMVF gauss notime | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding
• ✅ AMVF grid time | trackfinding | ttbar with 200 pileup | default seeding

[sonarcloud]

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 SonarCloud

[CarloVarni]

Hi @AJPfleger Is this test simply complaining or is it also trying to replace the code? In the latter case I have some concern since you may have to decide between (e.g.) std::numbers::pi_v<float> and std::numbers::pi_v<double> and std::numbers::pi

[AJPfleger]

It has a way to fix misused macros. As everything in ACTS, no changes are made without a proper PR. Since we don't have any cases of the macros anymore, they could only be introduced over new PRs.

The author could attempt a quick fix using --fix. If it uses the wrong type, it would then need to slip by the author and the reviewer. In that case it is still a double, which would be the same type as the macro, which would also have slipped through.

So, I don't really see a worsening of the situation.