On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 18:26:27 +, Luke Benes wrote:
> Whether Maaten misremembered, there was a net spit, or
> problem with your search, he did reach out to the dev list:
> http://document-foundation-mail-archive.969070.n3.nabble.com/Automated-cppcheck-reports-not-running-tt4290186.html
>
Whether Maaten misremembered, there was a net spit, or
problem with your search, he did reach out to the dev list:
http://document-foundation-mail-archive.969070.n3.nabble.com/Automated-cppcheck-reports-not-running-tt4290186.html
> I'm very much against re-hooking a box
A box that ran for
Hi Maarten,
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 19:37:45 +0200, Maarten Hoes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 7:30 PM Guilhem Moulin
> wrote:
> Thanks for searching through the logs to see if I indeed posted on IRC
> about this. So it looks like my memory is failing me on this point.
You might have posted
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 7:30 PM Guilhem Moulin
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 15:53:46 +, Luke Benes wrote:
> > At the time, Maarten reported this on the dev IRC, infra IRC, and the
> > mailing list. At the time, I assumed someone from infra would take
> > care of it.
>
> As cloph
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 15:53:46 +, Luke Benes wrote:
> At the time, Maarten reported this on the dev IRC, infra IRC, and the
> mailing list. At the time, I assumed someone from infra would take
> care of it.
As cloph wrote:
| But also don't expect Infra team to browse the list for random
|
Hi,
I wasn't subscribed to the dev mailing list up until just now, so when
people stopped explicitly CC'ing me I missed some parts of this discussion.
So here are some of my thoughts on the matter.
I personally feel that if there is little interest in running cppcheck on
the entire codebase
Cloph,
> But given that the job had stopped so many months ago without anyone
> complaining
At the time, Maarten reported this on the dev IRC, infra IRC, and the mailing
list. At the time, I assumed someone from infra would take care of it.
> Recreating it is always an option
Why can't
Hi Luke, *,
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:42 PM Luke Benes wrote:
> The script to email the dev list with the updated CppCheck Report at has
> stopped running.
back in June 2020… so as pointed out: not really actively used by people.
> Could we get this restarted?
Recreating it is always an
Hi Luke,
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 03:55:50PM +, Luke Benes
wrote:
> How common is this? A check of
> > git rev-list --all --grep='cppcheck' -i --count
> 1847
>
> Grepping shows a good mix of usual suspects and many GSoC students
> looking for easy hacks. More importantly there were
> Yes, at least that's how I use these linters.
How common is this? A check of
> git rev-list --all --grep='cppcheck' -i --count
1847
Grepping shows a good mix of usual suspects and many GSoC students looking for
easy hacks. More importantly there were almost none since the CppCheck script
Hi Maarten,
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 06:30:57PM +0200, Maarten Hoes
wrote:
> That may be true when running cppcheck on the entire codebase, but I now
> assume (please correct me if I'm wrong here) that this is not how people
> use the tool. Instead, cppcheck is likely to be run on a single file
Now that I think of it,
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:51 PM Luke Benes wrote:
> > I'm more interested in running such tools locally
>
> Depending on the configuration, cppcheck scans can take 8+ hours to run.
>
>
That may be true when running cppcheck on the entire codebase, but I now
assume
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 9:14 AM Miklos Vajna wrote:
> I'm more interested in running such tools locally
>
> < - snip ->
>
> The other problem with cppcheck is that it doesn't build on an existing
> c++ parser from a compiler (not based on e.g. gcc or clang), so its
> signal/noise ratio is
> I'm more interested in running such tools locally
Depending on the configuration, cppcheck scans can take 8+ hours to run. This
can be greatly reduce with parallel checks at the cost of several checks being
disabled.
> The other problem with cppcheck is that it doesn't build on an existing
Hi Luke,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:16:21PM +, Luke Benes
wrote:
> I spoke to the author of the cppcheck script, Maarten Hoes, about this
> issue. We would like to know why no one has responded to our emails
> about the cppcheck service being down. Are devs not interested in
> cppcheck's
I spoke to the author of the cppcheck script, Maarten Hoes, about this issue.
We would like to know why no one has responded to our emails about the cppcheck
service being down. Are devs not interested in cppcheck's results, is it the
high false positives, or is it that no one knows how to help
I dug a little deeper and the last error report has an "unexpected end of file"
when I tried to decompress it.[1] Is vm140 out of free space?
-Luke
[1] https://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/cppcheck_reports/cppcheck_reports.tar.bz2
___
LibreOffice
The script to email the dev list with the updated CppCheck Report at has
stopped running.
Could we get this restarted? While it was not perfect, a quick grep of the
commit log shows hundred of fixed bugs that it helped highlight.
The script was running on host vm140 as
18 matches
Mail list logo
