tidy: enable misc-unused-parameters

[Riolku]

About half of this was done by hand, and about half with an automated tool.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 23 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (f2171c0) 89.62% compared to head (5115d49) 89.72%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

❗ Current head 5115d49 differs from pull request most recent head c25f3ed. Consider uploading reports for the commit c25f3ed to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2249      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.62%   89.72%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files        1017     1013       -4     
  Lines       35856    35811      -45     
==========================================
- Hits        32137    32131       -6     
+ Misses       3719     3680      -39     

Files	Coverage Δ
src/common/arrow/arrow_row_batch.cpp	53.77% <ø> (ø)
src/common/string_utils.cpp	96.36% <100.00%> (ø)
src/common/type_utils.cpp	86.07% <100.00%> (-0.35%)	⬇️
src/expression_evaluator/case_evaluator.cpp	81.72% <ø> (ø)
src/expression_evaluator/function_evaluator.cpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/expression_evaluator/literal_evaluator.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/expression_evaluator/node_rel_evaluator.cpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/expression_evaluator/path_evaluator.cpp	98.49% <ø> (ø)
src/function/aggregate/count.cpp	69.23% <ø> (ø)
src/function/built_in_table_functions.cpp	98.05% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 143 more

... and 30 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[acquamarin]

I am not quite sure whether we should strictly follow the clang-format rule at this stage.
Maybe @ray6080 @andyfengHKU @mewim should also comment on this.

[ray6080]

I am not quite sure whether we should strictly follow the clang-format rule at this stage. Maybe @ray6080 @andyfengHKU @mewim should also comment on this.

I'm not against this change to enhance our tidy checks, though I feel we can deprioritize coding style checks for now, as this can easily add conflicts to other's local changes, and this seems like something good to be done in a bulky way. Maybe we can schedule code style cleanups before each release when we reach a state that most changes are frozen to be merged into master. Also, I'm curious if this can help moving towards -Werror in the longer term.

[Riolku]

I think most clang-tidy related changes should be less invasive than this one, or at least, so I hope.

#2194 was large because of me adding many tests, and renaming to stringFormat. #2156 was not very large.

[Riolku]

Realistically, with a team working full time, these kinds of changes will always cause mass conflicts. Even if we do it when master is frozen, this doesn't really prevent people from rebasing their branches. All it means is I have to rebase less when making this PR, maybe.

I agree that these changes can be deprioritized.