Re: Static Analysis (Coverity Scan)

[Thomas Adam]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:19:10PM -0400, Stephen Dennison wrote:
> How do we request access to the scan results?
> 
> Trying to view the link tells me I'm not authorized to access the page.

It looks as though this isn't public.  I'll add your email address to the list
of authorised users, and anyone else's who ask me to.

Please don't top-post on this mailing list, Stephen.

-- Thomas Adam

Re: Static Analysis (Coverity Scan)

[Stephen Dennison]

How do we request access to the scan results?

Trying to view the link tells me I'm not authorized to access the page.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Thomas Adam  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A while ago, I set up the FVWM repository to hook into Coverity [0], who
> specialise in static analysis and allow open source projects to be run
> against
> their tools for free.
>
> To that end the results are in:
>
> https://scan.coverity.com/projects/fvwm/view_defects
>
> I think it's rather interesting and perhaps alarming since there's quite a
> few
> defects it considers "high".  But hey, FVWM's still working so improving
> those
> is still a good thing.  Note that I haven't really started looking at
> these to
> see how many are false-positives, but a quick scan suggests these are
> legitimate.
>
> So if anyone wants to have a stab at looking at these, now's the time to
> start
> submitting pull-requests!  However, I suspect I'll be the one doing most of
> the work anyway...
>
> Can't hurt to ask, and to make other contributors (potential or otherwise)
> aware.
>
> -- Thomas Adam
>
> [0]  Another good example of why moving to Github was a good idea.
>
>