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

MISRA Addon for cppcheck static analysis #338

Closed
3 tasks done
0xsninja opened this issue Aug 17, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #339 or #340
Closed
3 tasks done

MISRA Addon for cppcheck static analysis #338

0xsninja opened this issue Aug 17, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #339 or #340

Comments

@0xsninja
Copy link

0xsninja commented Aug 17, 2021

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.
Currently the cppcheck static analysis workflow does not include MISRA addons. Adding the MISRA addons allows for a more thorough static analysis check.

Describe the solution you'd like
Using the cppcheck addon for MISRA, the current workflow has been modified to include the MISRA addons.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Alternatives might be a separate MISRA check workflow, but this way is more consolidated and easier.

Additional context
The cppcheck addon used can be found here: https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/blob/main/addons/README.md
The MISRA Python addon is here: https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/blob/main/addons/misra.py

Requester Info
Adrian Schalk
m225766@usna.edu
Goddard summer Intern under Ariel Adams
Midshipman, USN, US Naval Academy

@skliper
Copy link
Contributor

skliper commented Aug 17, 2021

Is there a way to manage what would throw an error vs be a warning to fix later (or quarantine or whatever)? Right now we are very "clean" vs the current cppcheck criteria and it's clear anything that gets reported we need to resolve before merge. If we add in all the MISRA rules without providing another category or separation we may get lost in all the additional information. Open to ideas/suggestions... right now I see the additional reporting as informational since we don't have hard pass/fail criteria related to those rules yet (we should work that out as part of the future coding standard compliance work!) Maybe we trigger the workflow manually based on someone committing to review it vs every push?

ArielSAdamsNASA pushed a commit to ArielSAdamsNASA/cFS-JSF-Rules that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2021
ArielSAdamsNASA pushed a commit to ArielSAdamsNASA/cFS-JSF-Rules that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2021
ArielSAdamsNASA pushed a commit to ArielSAdamsNASA/cFS-JSF-Rules that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2021
ArielSAdamsNASA pushed a commit to ArielSAdamsNASA/cFS-JSF-Rules that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2021
ArielSAdamsNASA pushed a commit to ArielSAdamsNASA/cFS-JSF-Rules that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2021
ArielSAdamsNASA pushed a commit to ArielSAdamsNASA/cFS-JSF-Rules that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2021
ArielSAdamsNASA pushed a commit to ArielSAdamsNASA/cFS-JSF-Rules that referenced this issue Aug 18, 2021
astrogeco added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 21, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants