Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen/cppcheck: sort alphabetically cppcheck report entries

[Luca Fancellu <Luca.Fancellu@xxxxxxx>]

> On 9 Jan 2023, at 11:41, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 09.01.2023 12:15, Michal Orzel wrote:
>> On 06/01/2023 11:41, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> Sort alphabetically cppcheck report entries when producing the text
>>> report, this will help comparing different reports and will group
>>> together findings from the same file.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py 
>>> b/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py
>>> index 02440aefdfec..f02166ed9d19 100644
>>> --- a/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py
>>> +++ b/xen/scripts/xen_analysis/cppcheck_report_utils.py
>>> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@ def cppcheck_merge_txt_fragments(fragments_list, 
>>> out_txt_file, strip_paths):
>>>                 for path in strip_paths:
>>>                     text_report_content[i] = text_report_content[i].replace(
>>>                                                                 path + "/", 
>>> "")
>>> +            # sort alphabetically the entries
>>> +            text_report_content.sort()
>>>             # Write the final text report
>>>             outfile.writelines(text_report_content)
>>>     except OSError as e:
>>> --
>>> 2.17.1
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Hi Michal, Jan,

>> Having the report sorted is certainly a good idea. I am just thinking 
>> whether it should be done
>> per file or per finding (e.g. rule). When fixing MISRA issues, best approach 
>> is to try to fix all
>> the issues for a given rule (i.e. a series fixing one rule) rather than all 
>> the issues in a file
>> from different rules. Having a report sorted per finding would make this 
>> process easier. We could
>> add a custom key to sort function to take the second element (after 
>> splitting with ':' separator)
>> which is the name of the finding to achieve this goal. Let me know your 
>> thoughts.
> 
> +1 - sorting by file name wants to be the 2nd sorting criteria, i.e. only 
> among
> all instances of the same finding.

Yes both suggestions make sense to me.

> 
> Jan