Troubleshoot CodeChecker diffs being too large#2359
Merged
Conversation
…omponents such as Keyboard.cpp or the assignment-client.
JulianGro
force-pushed
the
troubleshoot_codechecker_diff
branch
from
b65551a to
3484052
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As far as I can tell, the huge differences in Nightly and Pull Requests when it comes to warnings is that Nightly is just not checking some components; at least
assignment-client/*and interface'sKeyboard.cppwere not checked in the latest Nightly run.I don't know why the
codegentarget would have such a discrepancy between Nightly and Pull Requests, but as far as I can tell, thecodegentarget misses a whole bunch of stuff even on Pull Request builds. So rather than using thecodegentarget, I switched CodeChecker to use the defaultalltarget instead. Thecodegentarget doesn't work as it should on our codebase anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if the static analyzers shouldn't have been able to work with it at all in the first place.