On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 01:08:26PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > For the record, I enabled Coccinelle in our CI (GitHub Actions) > > yesterday and worked around that issue with the following script: > > > > make -C bpf/ coccicheck | tee /tmp/stdout > > exit $(grep -c "[prefix of warning messages]" /tmp/stdout) > > I propose to improve the data processing approach according to your recent > commit “coccinelle: Run coccicheck with GitHub Actions”. > https://github.com/cilium/cilium/commit/35d299a4ee996dc2f4beec3c88b77dedbd00b2ba > > > > Please see above script. I currently exit with number of failures, > > but having just 0 (success) and 1 (fail) statuses would be enough. > > I suggest to stick to a more traditional handling of the program > exit status because of development concerns around software portability. > > > >> Will the usage of additional data structures become more interesting? > > > > Not sure I understand the question. What data structures? > > Examples: > > * Ordinary text files for the standard output and error channels. > > * Would you like to store any search results into database tables? > > * How do you think about to perform data transmissions by higher level > programming interfaces for distributed processes? > > > Which software extensions can become more interesting also for > applications around your continuous integration system?
I see. We're not planning to use any of the above in the medium term. We're only planning to add Coccinelle rules in the future. If we need more complex post-processing, we'll likely implement it in GitHub Actions and not directly in Coccinelle scripts. Paul _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
