Add new filter to the sanity checker to check for plain wxFAIL macros

wxFAIL is for the lazy programmer. Most of the time it can be replaced with
an appropriate wxCHECK() macro, making the code even more readable. Okay, I
admit there are cases it is valid to use wxFAIL, but even in these cases one
should use wxFAIL_MSG() instead, to give an explanation on what went wrong at
first sight.

Author: gonosztopi

src/utils/scripts/sanity

@@ -239,10 +239,10 @@ class WxFailUsage < SanityCheck
 	def initialize
 		super
 
-		@name  = "WxFailUsagesy"
+		@name  = "WxFailUsage"
 		@title = "Always failing wxASSERT()"
 		@type  = "Good Practice"
-		@desc  = "Use wxFAIL instead of an always failing wxASSERT()."
+		@desc  = "Use wxFAIL_MSG() instead of an always failing wxASSERT()."
 	end
 
 	def parse_file(file, lines)
@@ -257,6 +257,31 @@ end
 
 
 
+class NoMoreWxFail < SanityCheck
+	def initialize
+		super
+
+		@name  = "NoMoreWxFail"
+		@title = "wxFAIL needs an explanation"
+		@type  = "Good Practice"
+		@desc  = "Use wxFAIL_MSG() instead of wxFAIL to provide a description of what happened. "
+		@desc += "Or even better, use one of the wxCHECK*() or wxASSERT*() macros if applicable. "
+		@desc += "An assertion of type 'wxAssertFailure' without description does not say much, "
+		@desc += "please provide a short explanation of what went wrong."
+	end
+
+	def parse_file(file, lines)
+		results = lines.select do |line|
+			line.text =~ /\bwxFAIL\b/ and not
+			line.text =~ /\/\/\s*wxFAIL\b/
+		end
+
+		add_results( file, results )
+	end
+end
+
+
+
 class PassByValue < SanityCheck
 	def initialize
 		super
@@ -664,6 +689,7 @@ filterList.push InlinedIfTrue.new
 filterList.push LoopOnConstant.new
 filterList.push MissingImplementation.new
 filterList.push WxFailUsage.new
+filterList.push NoMoreWxFail.new
 
 
 # Sort enabled filters by type and name. The reason why this is done here is