Hello,
Here are some additional remarks about the "conf" configuration file,
and the file of results:
Le 19/04/2016 13:09, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
.../...
* Presently, slint() does not allow
o to *provide a **Scilab version against which the Scilab
code must be checked*.
o to provide a subset of rules (or categories of rules) that
must be checked, instead of checking all defined rules.
.
* Apparently, the so-called "configuration" file is somewhat used to
that, but it's rather unhandy: to set a set of rules, we have to
edit the conf file, to turn enable="true"into enable="false"for each
rule that we want to cancel (or the opposite), to save
modifications, and then call slint() with the file as "conf"
parameter... instead of directly passing the vector of rules
indices, or a vector of text ids (case-insensitive, please) such as
["uselessarg" "FunctionName" "redefinition"], or a vector of ids of
rules subsets. Rather cumbersome.
* The format of the file of results is not documented. It is an XML
file. Why has this encoding been chosen? XML is for parsers rather
than for humans -- whereas a CSV is directly readable --, but here
for which parser? Nothing is told about how to
process/update/upgrade input files using results. Is there anything
planned, for instance with Scinotes that could use input files and
XMLed results to edit files and highlight parts to be updated, or
even to automate the upgrade? If nothing is presently planned in
such a way, imo encoding results in CSV would be better.
Best regards
Samuel Gougeon
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
