-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
Add linter warnings for missing ownership annotations #90
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
Ayushd785
wants to merge
6
commits into
rizinorg:dev
Choose a base branch
from
Ayushd785:add-ownership-annotation-warnings
base: dev
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e5f82f0
Add linter warnings for missing ownership annotations
Ayushd785 9262149
check all pointer returns for ownership annotations
Ayushd785 6919138
fixed a typo bug and added a extra check to skip the external libs
Ayushd785 05b50cd
Merge branch 'dev' into add-ownership-annotation-warnings
notxvilka 86226db
Merge branch 'dev' into add-ownership-annotation-warnings
notxvilka abc891c
Update src/lint.py
Ayushd785 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Like the change. But why only these types? Any pointer which is not
constneeds ownership info.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yaaa makes sense, this should apply to all non-const pointers. I'll update the logic to check if the return type is a non-const pointer instead of checking against specific type names. Will it be a good approach then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
constmerely means that the data structure and/or pointer is read-only ... the caller might still need to free the returnedconstpointer depending on whether the annotation isRZ_OWNorRZ_BORROWThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, so you're saying even
constpointers need ownership annotations since const only affects mutability, not ownership?But then, should we check ALL pointer returns, or still focus on specific types like container types (
RzList,RzVector, etc.) that are heap-allocated?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i disagree. i expect any const pointer (returned) to be always borrowed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is a reasonable expectation and should be coded in the linter logic, meaning that there should be a warning when
RZ_OWNis used with a returnedconstpointer.Hmm, still need to check all pointer returns.
Anyway, I'm ok with checking all non-
constpointer returns as a start. Hopefully there won't be a ton of warnings.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, lets do all non-
constpointers. I assume the amount of changes would be significant. We can run linter manually first before merging, fix all occurences, and then merge the PRThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good idea! Second this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it! So i have to check ALL non-const pointer returns for missing ownership annotations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am sorry, everyone, for being inactive here. I am on a very tight schedule for the next 3-4 days. I will implement the suggested changes as soon as i get some time.