| Message ID | 20230106104108.14740-2-luca.fancellu@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Cppcheck MISRA analysis improvements | expand |
Hi Luca, On 06/01/2023 11:41, Luca Fancellu wrote: > > > Sort alphabetically cppcheck report entries when producing the text > report, this will help comparing different reports and will group > together findings from the same file. > > Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@arm.com> > --- > xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py b/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py > index 02440aefdfec..f02166ed9d19 100644 > --- a/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py > +++ b/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py > @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ def cppcheck_merge_txt_fragments(fragments_list, out_txt_file, strip_paths): > for path in strip_paths: > text_report_content[i] = text_report_content[i].replace( > path + "/", "") > + # sort alphabetically the entries > + text_report_content.sort() > # Write the final text report > outfile.writelines(text_report_content) > except OSError as e: > -- > 2.17.1 > > Having the report sorted is certainly a good idea. I am just thinking whether it should be done per file or per finding (e.g. rule). When fixing MISRA issues, best approach is to try to fix all the issues for a given rule (i.e. a series fixing one rule) rather than all the issues in a file from different rules. Having a report sorted per finding would make this process easier. We could add a custom key to sort function to take the second element (after splitting with ':' separator) which is the name of the finding to achieve this goal. Let me know your thoughts. ~Michal
On 09.01.2023 12:15, Michal Orzel wrote: > On 06/01/2023 11:41, Luca Fancellu wrote: >> Sort alphabetically cppcheck report entries when producing the text >> report, this will help comparing different reports and will group >> together findings from the same file. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@arm.com> >> --- >> xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py b/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py >> index 02440aefdfec..f02166ed9d19 100644 >> --- a/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py >> +++ b/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py >> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ def cppcheck_merge_txt_fragments(fragments_list, out_txt_file, strip_paths): >> for path in strip_paths: >> text_report_content[i] = text_report_content[i].replace( >> path + "/", "") >> + # sort alphabetically the entries >> + text_report_content.sort() >> # Write the final text report >> outfile.writelines(text_report_content) >> except OSError as e: >> -- >> 2.17.1 >> >> > > Having the report sorted is certainly a good idea. I am just thinking whether it should be done > per file or per finding (e.g. rule). When fixing MISRA issues, best approach is to try to fix all > the issues for a given rule (i.e. a series fixing one rule) rather than all the issues in a file > from different rules. Having a report sorted per finding would make this process easier. We could > add a custom key to sort function to take the second element (after splitting with ':' separator) > which is the name of the finding to achieve this goal. Let me know your thoughts. +1 - sorting by file name wants to be the 2nd sorting criteria, i.e. only among all instances of the same finding. Jan
> On 9 Jan 2023, at 11:41, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: > > On 09.01.2023 12:15, Michal Orzel wrote: >> On 06/01/2023 11:41, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>> Sort alphabetically cppcheck report entries when producing the text >>> report, this will help comparing different reports and will group >>> together findings from the same file. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@arm.com> >>> --- >>> xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py b/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py >>> index 02440aefdfec..f02166ed9d19 100644 >>> --- a/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py >>> +++ b/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py >>> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ def cppcheck_merge_txt_fragments(fragments_list, out_txt_file, strip_paths): >>> for path in strip_paths: >>> text_report_content[i] = text_report_content[i].replace( >>> path + "/", "") >>> + # sort alphabetically the entries >>> + text_report_content.sort() >>> # Write the final text report >>> outfile.writelines(text_report_content) >>> except OSError as e: >>> -- >>> 2.17.1 >>> >>> >> Hi Michal, Jan, >> Having the report sorted is certainly a good idea. I am just thinking whether it should be done >> per file or per finding (e.g. rule). When fixing MISRA issues, best approach is to try to fix all >> the issues for a given rule (i.e. a series fixing one rule) rather than all the issues in a file >> from different rules. Having a report sorted per finding would make this process easier. We could >> add a custom key to sort function to take the second element (after splitting with ':' separator) >> which is the name of the finding to achieve this goal. Let me know your thoughts. > > +1 - sorting by file name wants to be the 2nd sorting criteria, i.e. only among > all instances of the same finding. Yes both suggestions make sense to me. > > Jan
diff --git a/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py b/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py index 02440aefdfec..f02166ed9d19 100644 --- a/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py +++ b/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ def cppcheck_merge_txt_fragments(fragments_list, out_txt_file, strip_paths): for path in strip_paths: text_report_content[i] = text_report_content[i].replace( path + "/", "") + # sort alphabetically the entries + text_report_content.sort() # Write the final text report outfile.writelines(text_report_content) except OSError as e:
Sort alphabetically cppcheck report entries when producing the text report, this will help comparing different reports and will group together findings from the same file. Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@arm.com> --- xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)