@akuker All my changes are committed, i.e. this PR is ready for review again
All in all, I reduced the number of SonarCloud issues by about 1400 (compared with the last release).
@rdmark Have you already checked the html and python issues?

SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.   

1 Bug
0 Vulnerabilities
1 Security Hotspot
30 Code Smells

48.4% Coverage
0.3% Duplication

@uweseimet Do you mean python and html issues reported by Sonarcloud? How can I see them?

@rdmark Just select the branch you are interested in on https://sonarcloud.io/project/overview?id=akuker_RASCSI.

@akuker After the review, I would like to merge this PR myself, because I want to clean up the final log message.

@uweseimet Thanks I found the relevant report. Glancing through the Python code smells, vulnerabilities and issues, there are a handful that are worth addressing. Others are known structural issues that pylint has reported already, but are hard to do anything about (complexity, nested if statements, etc.) without major refactoring.

As for the reported html issues: we deliberately use deprecated syntax in order to support ancient web browsers, so none of those are something that we want to address. If we can suppress html syntax deprecation warning that would be great.

So the conclusion here is that I don't think we want to make any changes right now, but put on the backlog to address later.

@rdmark Do issues like those reported for python/common/src/util/unarchiver.py require a major refactoring?

@uweseimet I agree that unarchiver.py is the one module with low hanging fruit to potentially fix.
@nucleogenic Do you want to look into it, and perhaps fold changes into a new PR or your ongoing PR?

Hi both,

I will check out the SonarCloud reports soon and raise a new PR for any changes.

The unarchiver module is going to need refactoring to allow it to be unit tested, which is something I'm keen to investigate now we've got pytest set up.

Approved. feel free to merge!

@akuker Done, thank you for reviewing!