Cppcheck suppresions set 59 #38747
Cppcheck suppresions set 59 #38747
Conversation
| @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ GNU_DIAG_OFF("unused-local-typedef") | |||
| // Seen with GCC 7.1.1 and Boost 1.63.0 | |||
| GNU_DIAG_OFF("conversion") | |||
| // define overloaded functions | |||
| // cppcheck-suppress unknownMacro | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems to be an issue with cppcheck not being able to find boost macros, will create an issue for it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that situation occurred for us as well.
| @@ -46,11 +46,13 @@ void export_Instrument() { | |||
| "represents the source") | |||
|
|
|||
| .def("getComponentByName", | |||
| // cppcheck-suppress cstyleCast | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cstylecast used in all such exports, suspect it is not worth changing them all under the scope of this hackathon. Will raise an issue.
github-actions
bot
added
the
Has Conflicts
|
👋 Hi, @adriazalvarez, Conflicts have been detected against the base branch. Please rebase your branch against the base branch. |
adriazalvarez
force-pushed
the
cpp_check_hackathon_set59
branch
from
a42d8c5 to
78e86f0
Compare
github-actions
bot
removed
the
Has Conflicts
sf1919
added
the
Maintenance
| constParameterCallback:${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/Framework/PythonInterface/mantid/geometry/src/Exports/MeshObject.cpp:29 | ||
| constParameterCallback:${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/Framework/PythonInterface/mantid/geometry/src/Exports/ReflectionGenerator.cpp:40 | ||
| cstyleCast:${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/Framework/PythonInterface/mantid/geometry/src/Exports/UnitCell.cpp:175 | ||
| iterateByValue:${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR}/Framework/PythonInterface/mantid/kernel/src/Exports/ArrayProperty.cpp:52 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like this PR only addresses half of the set. Is that intentional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@warunawickramasingha was assigned to submit the other half. Sorry, I shouldn't have put it on review;
Description of work
Summary of work
Fixes #xxxx.
Further detail of work
To test:
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
Functional Tests
Does everything look good? Mark the review as Approve. A member of
@mantidproject/gatekeeperswill 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.