Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Cppcheck suppressions set 56 #38744

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Cppcheck suppressions set 56 #38744

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

RichardWaiteSTFC
Copy link
Contributor

@RichardWaiteSTFC RichardWaiteSTFC commented Jan 29, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Description of work

image

There is no associated issue. Part of cpp hackathon

Report to: @cailafinn

To test:

CI passes

This does not require release notes because will not affect the user

Reviewer

Please comment on the points listed below (full description).
Your comments will be used as part of the gatekeeper process, so please comment clearly on what you have checked during your review. If changes are made to the PR during the review process then your final comment will be the most important for gatekeepers. In this comment you should make it clear why any earlier review is still valid, or confirm that all requested changes have been addressed.

Code Review

  • Is the code of an acceptable quality?
  • Does the code conform to the coding standards?
  • Are the unit tests small and test the class in isolation?
  • If there is GUI work does it follow the GUI standards?
  • If there are changes in the release notes then do they describe the changes appropriately?
  • Do the release notes conform to the release notes guide?

Functional Tests

  • Do changes function as described? Add comments below that describe the tests performed?
  • Do the changes handle unexpected situations, e.g. bad input?
  • Has the relevant (user and developer) documentation been added/updated?

Does everything look good? Mark the review as Approve. A member of @mantidproject/gatekeepers will take care of it.

Gatekeeper

If you need to request changes to a PR then please add a comment and set the review status to "Request changes". This will stop the PR from showing up in the list for other gatekeepers.

RichardWaiteSTFC and others added 3 commits January 29, 2025 11:58
@RichardWaiteSTFC
Cppcheck suppressions set 56
7505b36
@RichardWaiteSTFC @MohamedAlmaki
Remove lines from suppressions and other fixes
676caa3 
Py_RETURN_NONE renamed to Py_NONE and return removed (now to be done manually) as not used anywhere else and was confusing cppcheck with missing return.

Had to make lambda function wrapper if wanted to return const pointer in AlgorithmProperty.cpp

Co-authored-by: Mohamed Almaki <[email protected]>
@RichardWaiteSTFC
Not use macro to return
0f31aaf
@sf1919
Copy link
Contributor

sf1919 commented Jan 29, 2025

Cancelling other tests as it seems there are genuine failures

@sf1919 sf1919 added the Maintenance Unassigned issues to be addressed in the next maintenance period. label Jan 30, 2025
@sf1919 sf1919 added this to the Release 6.13 milestone Jan 30, 2025
@MohamedAlmaki
Copy link
Contributor

This is ready for review as I resolved the issue, do you have any additions? @RichardWaiteSTFC

@RichardWaiteSTFC
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is ready for review as I resolved the issue, do you have any additions? @RichardWaiteSTFC

No, thanks for setting ready to review and for fixing the above issue!

@MohamedAlmaki MohamedAlmaki marked this pull request as ready for review February 4, 2025 10:11
GuiMacielPereira
GuiMacielPereira requested changes Feb 5, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@GuiMacielPereira GuiMacielPereira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall all good, I would only request changes to one of these, which is the cstyle casts, see below my comment.

GuiMacielPereira
GuiMacielPereira requested changes Feb 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@GuiMacielPereira GuiMacielPereira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should make it clear that the reason we're suppressing it is because static_cast does not fix it, so I just thought that the best way to do it is to use static_cast and then add a comment about it.

@GuiMacielPereira GuiMacielPereira self-requested a review February 19, 2025 10:08
GuiMacielPereira
GuiMacielPereira requested changes Feb 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@GuiMacielPereira GuiMacielPereira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the following changes will fix it, the reason it failed cppcheck is because the formatting changed added a new line which means the supression was not acting on the correct line

@GuiMacielPereira GuiMacielPereira self-requested a review February 19, 2025 14:54
GuiMacielPereira
GuiMacielPereira approved these changes Feb 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@GuiMacielPereira GuiMacielPereira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think these changes are good to go now. Maybe @jhaigh0 and @thomashampson can have a look at the cstyleCast suppression to confirm it.

@sf1919 sf1919 mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2025
Draft
thomashampson
thomashampson reviewed Feb 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Framework/PythonInterface/mantid/api/src/Exports/AlgorithmProperty.cpp
Comment on lines +42 to +43
static const AlgorithmProperty *(*const createPropertyWithValidator)(const std::string &, const IValidator *) =
+[](const std::string &name, const IValidator *validator) -> const AlgorithmProperty * {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you explain this syntax?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

CppCheck complained that the function pointer could be passed as a const pointer. So, I converted the function into a const function pointer. This syntax uses C++ lambda expressions to create a function and then convert it to a C-style function pointer. I just realised that we might not need the conversion and could use a C++ function pointer instead. It is also strange that CppCheck is raising this issue only with this function and not with the others.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@thomashampson thomashampson thomashampson left review comments

@MohamedAlmaki MohamedAlmaki MohamedAlmaki left review comments

@GuiMacielPereira GuiMacielPereira GuiMacielPereira approved these changes

Assignees

@GuiMacielPereira GuiMacielPereira

Labels
Maintenance Unassigned issues to be addressed in the next maintenance period.
Projects
Mantid Maintenance
Status: Ready for Review
Milestone
Release 6.13
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@RichardWaiteSTFC @sf1919 @MohamedAlmaki @thomashampson @GuiMacielPereira