Mailing List Archive

Re: Coverity scan results and actions
I have skimmed a few of the bugs on
the latest Coverity scan, and noticed
that some of the issues are false
positives (in particular, there are some
reported resource leaks that are due
to Coverity not understanding the
deleteLater constructs, which cppcheck
also does not understand).

Is it acceptable to the developers if
I choose to mark those issues as
appropriate in the defect list in order
to make the report a bit more useful,
or should I leave it to the devs to
make those determinations and
changes and open a ticket in MythTV
trac for any such proposed changes?
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
Re: Coverity scan results and actions [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 16:26 +0000, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> I have skimmed a few of the bugs on
> the latest Coverity scan, and noticed
> that some of the issues are false
> positives (in particular, there are some
> reported resource leaks that are due
> to Coverity not understanding the
> deleteLater constructs, which cppcheck
> also does not understand).
>
> Is it acceptable to the developers if
> I choose to mark those issues as
> appropriate in the defect list in order
> to make the report a bit more useful,
> or should I leave it to the devs to
> make those determinations and
> changes and open a ticket in MythTV
> trac for any such proposed changes?

What really needs to be done is to create a modeling file to prevent
these and any future false positives related to deleteLater.

David

https://scan.coverity.com/tune

_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org
Re: Coverity scan results and actions [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:13 PM David Hampton <mythtv@love2code.net> wrote:

> What really needs to be done is to create a modeling file to prevent
> these and any future false positives related to deleteLater.
>
> David
>
> https://scan.coverity.com/tune

Yes, that would be better way moving
forward, as it fixes the now, and the future.
However, only the MythTV devs have the
ability to tune the Coverity model (or even
look at it at all as I recall), which is why I
was not thinking of that option(*).

Another way is adding annotations to
the code itself (using comments of the
form of something like: /* coverity[....] */)
which is what the code base already has
for certain cppcheck issues. Most agree
changing the modeling file is a better
option (where viable),



(*) And I seem to recall the documentation
is now behind a paywall limited to actual
(paying) customers (registering to the
community was not sufficient when I tried
it some time ago; I don't know if the docs
are available through a different path).
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev@mythtv.org
http://lists.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
http://wiki.mythtv.org/Mailing_List_etiquette
MythTV Forums: https://forum.mythtv.org