SonarCloud coverage setup, fixed numerous SonarCloud issues#840
SonarCloud coverage setup, fixed numerous SonarCloud issues#840
Conversation
|
SonarCloud Quality Gate failed. |
|
Uwe, while not strictly related to this PR, it seems the -Wextra compiler
flag has made it back into the Makefile. This triggers “unused parameter”
compile time errors on common gcc versions.
…On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 11:23 AM Uwe Seimet ***@***.***> wrote:
@uweseimet <https://github.com/uweseimet> requested your review on: #840
<#840> SonarCloud coverage setup,
fixed numerous SonarCloud issues as a code owner.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#840 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQCYM7ONHJV3Z7PYQN42TDV5GWCDANCNFSM6AAAAAAQHQOOZA>
.
You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
@rdmark Are these errors really back? These errors were caused by unused code. I removed this code and the errors were gone. Do you still get them? |
|
They made a return with the Apple CD-ROM code I think.
./devices/scsi_command_util.cpp: In function ‘void
scsi_command_util::AddAppleVendorModePage(std::map<int,
std::vector<unsigned char> >&, int, bool)’:
./devices/scsi_command_util.cpp:90:83: error: unused parameter ‘page’
[-Werror=unused-parameter]
void scsi_command_util::AddAppleVendorModePage(map<int, vector<BYTE>>&
pages, int page, bool changeable)
~~~~^~~~
cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
make: *** [Makefile:160: obj/fullspec/scsi_command_util.o] Error 1
…On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 3:51 PM Uwe Seimet ***@***.***> wrote:
@rdmark <https://github.com/rdmark> Are these errors really back? These
errors were caused by unused code. I removed this code and the errors were
gone. Do you still get them?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#840 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQCYM4FBMBD6HOZY2QW7JTV5HVPFANCNFSM6AAAAAAQHQOOZA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
@rdmark This was an issue caused by the CD-ROM change. I already complained about that change having been merged without my review ;-). |
Sorry about that! I'll try to do better! |
|
@uweseimet - this weekend I'm going to spend some time on gpiobus.h/cpp. So, could you ignore those from your Sonarcloud cleanup efforts for now? Thanks! |
|
@uweseimet - FYI: In SonarCloud, I turned off the code duplication metrics for the src/raspberrypi/test directory. It was making the duplicate code metrics artificially high. Let me know if you disagree with this action, and I"ll change it back. |
|
@akuker Cleaning up gpiobus.h/cpp sounds good. Together with cfilesystem.h/cpp these classes cause a major part of the remaining SonarCloud issues, based on the the issue status of the https://sonarcloud.io/summary/new_code?id=akuker_RASCSI&branch=feature_memory_management_update branch. |
|
@akuker The current workflow compiles and tests the same code twice if there is a PR for a branch. It is compiled for the PR and additionally for the branch. I suggest to change the workflow to not deal with PRs, because usually there is always a branch with the code changes the PR refers to. I will add the required change to #842. Edit: I reverted that change because the PRs do not show the quality results anymore with it. But the fact that the same workflows are run twice is not nice. |
|
If we run them twice, that makes up for all the PRs we did without running the workflows ;] TBH, I don't really have a problem with it running twice. that can be something we fix somewhere down the road, but it would be pretty far down on my priority list. |
|
@Akuer You get the same email (qualitty gate) filed twice once you have create a (draft or final) PR. |
This PR fixes the GitHub action that collects SonarCloud coverage data. In addition, it merges the unit test and code coverage action into one, because both are related and the testing/coverage action setup is simplified The action was cleaned up in order not to do stuff not needed, e.g to install a cross compiler.
@akuker I think the cleanup is reasonable, but please tell me if I missed something. The build action remains unchanged, but maybe it can also be cleaned up in order to run faster.
This PR also fixes numerous SonarCloud issues which were not reported by the Eclipse SonarLint plugin.
Coverage results are available on https://sonarcloud.io/summary/new_code?id=akuker_RASCSI&branch=feature_sonarcloud_coverage.