Re: [PATCH 3/4] tools/misra: fix skipped rule numbers

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > On 29 Nov 2022, at 23:51, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> >> Currently the script convert_misra_doc.py is using a loop through
> >> range(1,22) to enumerate rules that needs to be skipped, however
> >> range function does not include the stop counter in the enumeration
> >> ending up into list rules until 21.21 instead of including rule 22.
> >> 
> >> Fix the issue using a dictionary that list the rules in misra c2012.
> > 
> > I think I understand the problem you are trying to solve with this
> > patch. But I am confused about the proposed solution.
> > 
> > The original code is trying to list all the possible MISRA C rules that
> > are not in docs/misra/rules.rst. Instead of list(range(1,22)) now we
> > have a dictionary: misra_c2012_rules. But misra_c2012_rules doesn't have
> > all the possible MISRA C rules missing from docs/misra/rules.rst.
> > 
> > As an example Rule 13.1 is missing from docs/misra/rules.rst but it is
> > also missing from misra_c2012_rules.
> > 
> > Can you please help me understand why misra_c2012_rules has only a small
> > subset of MISRA C rules to be skipped?
> 
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> MISRA rules are in this format X.Y, misra_c2012_rules is a dictionary where 
> the key is 
> X and the value is the maximum number that Y can have.
> 
> For example rule 13.Y goes from 13.1 to 13.6 (in the dictionary 
> misra_c2012_rules[13] == 6),
> so the code can now check which among (13.1 .. 13.6) is not in the rule_list 
> and add it to the
> list of skipped rules.
> 
> Here an example:
> {
>     "script": "misra.py",
>     "args": [
>       "--rule-texts=/path/to/cppcheck-misra.txt",
>       
> "--suppress-rules=1.1,1.2,1.4,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,3.1,4.1,4.2,5.5,5.6,5.7,5.8,5.9,6.1,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4,8.2,8.3,8.7,8.9,8.11,8.13,8.14,9.3,9.4,9.5,10.1,10.2,10.3,10.4,10.5,10.6,10.7,10.8,11.1,11.2,11.3,11.4,11.5,11.6,11.7,11.8,11.9,12.1,12.2,12.3,12.4,12.5,13.1,13.2,13.3,13.4,13.5,14.2,14.3,14.4,15.1,15.2,15.3,15.4,15.5,15.6,15.7,16.1,16.2,16.3,16.4,16.5,16.6,17.1,17.2,17.5,17.6,17.7,17.8,18.1,18.2,18.3,18.4,18.5,18.6,18.7,18.8,19.1,19.2,20.1,20.2,20.3,20.4,20.5,20.6,20.8,20.9,20.10,20.11,20.12,21.1,21.2,21.3,21.4,21.5,21.6,21.7,21.8,21.9,21.10,21.11,21.12,21.13,21.14,21.15,21.16,21.17,21.18,21.19,21.20,21.21,22.1,22.2,22.3,22.4,22.5,22.6,22.7,22.8,22.9,22.10"
>     ]
> }
> 
> So this patch is solving two issues, the first one was that rule 22.Y was 
> never included in the suppressed
> list because range(1,22) produces a range in [1..21], the second issue is 
> that the code was producing
> Invalid MISRA C 2012 rules, for example 1.21 and so on.

I see, that makes sense. Please improve the commit message with this
information and add

Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>