|
||||||||
|
This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
||||||||
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Thank you for coming back to me, with an explanation to the issue.
You understood my issue correctly, except the 26 warnings are style warnings. I do not know which manual you are referring to!?
As CPPCheck has error/issue levels with one level being error, I would definitely name it “issue” there/in the tooltip. I am not sure how consitent CPPCheck itself is in this respect, but it should definitely conciously use this distinction itself (code/documentation/CPPCheck GUI).
Given your description, I would expect all levels (Error, Warning, Style, Performance, Portability, Information, No category) to effect this then.
In the previously described situiation, the jobs severity evaluation has marked: Error, Warning, Style, Performance and Information.
I guess the settings “Severity evaluation” applies only to “Build status” then? Personally, I would expect the severity evaluation settings to be under the label Build status as well then. Not sure if Jenkins has a different guideline on this!?
In another job and build, I got:
Error 2
Warning 677 +1
Style 3172
Performance 672
Portability 22
Information 2123
No category 0
Hence, one new Warning (only).
The Job is configured with (red bubble) New = 1 as well, and has the severity evaluation marked: Error, Warning
Given your description, I would expect the build to have been marked as a failure. It did not though. Is there an issue with evaluating Warning-level cppcheck “errors”/issues here? Or is this a misconception again?