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.

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

Static analysis workflow matrix and strict directory handling not working as intended #453

Closed
3 tasks done
skliper opened this issue Apr 8, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #454 or #461
Closed
3 tasks done

Comments

@skliper
Copy link
Contributor

skliper commented Apr 8, 2022

Checklist (Please check before submitting)

  • I reviewed the Contributing Guide.
  • I reviewed the cFS README.md file to see if the feature is in the major future work.
  • I performed a cursory search to see if the feature request is relevant, not redundant, nor in conflict with other tickets.

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The leading . isn't consistently applied (better to remove) and the non-strict/strict matrix doesn't really work right.

run: cppcheck --force --inline-suppr --std=c99 --language=c --enable=warning,performance,portability,style --suppress=variableScope --inconclusive .${{ inputs.strict-dir-list }} 2> ../${{matrix.cppcheck}}_cppcheck_err.txt

Example:
strict-dir-list: './src/bsp ./src/os' as used in OSAL becomes ../src/bsp ./src/os which then misses the leading dir

The matrix runs all the steps in two workflows where only the upload is conditional. It still does both checks... really the checks are very fast so no need to split (already in separate steps so easy to see what fails).

Describe the solution you'd like
Remove matrix, remove leading . on strict directory list

Describe alternatives you've considered
None

Additional context
Will impact psp strict check nasa/PSP#333.

Requester Info
Jacob Hageman - NASA/GSFC

@skliper
Copy link
Contributor Author

skliper commented Apr 19, 2022

Reopened in error, closing based on merge of #454

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
2 participants