From kde-core-devel Thu Oct 16 16:48:25 2014 From: "David Jarvie" Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:48:25 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: kdepimlibs Coverity Scan Report, Oct 14 2014 Message-Id: <0b0b087e743ec243f1d528ed214ea9b9.squirrel () www6 ! sensical ! net> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=141347812823555 On Thu, October 16, 2014 2:06 pm, Gilles Caulier wrote: > 2014-10-16 12:29 GMT+02:00 Ben Cooksley : >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Gilles Caulier >> wrote: >>> Allen, >> >> Hi Gilles, >> >>> >>> Just a workflow question : why to export Coverity report to CSV where >>> you can send automatically a mail to devel mailing list when scan is >>> complete, with a a list of new defect found in code. >>> >>> I use Coverity since more than one year with whole digiKam code, and >>> we have already fixed more than 500 entries detected. The Coverity web >>> interface is really more suitable than a export to CSV. Defect are >>> very well explained in source context, with all conditions used to >>> check implementation. >>> >>> The only constrain is to have an account for each contributors who >>> will fixed entries. >> >> I suspect that is why Allen is sending out the HTML/CSV output - >> because not everyone has access and it is helpful to have this >> information publicly accessible. > > All is configurable in Coverity interface. You can invite people and > attribute role. > > Web interface is so far more powerful to use than CSV, and permit a > time gain to fix issues. The CSV version doesn't contain line numbers, so it's impossible to know what code some of the issues refer to. I seem to remember that the web interface doesn't have that problem. -- David Jarvie. KDE developer. KAlarm author - http://www.astrojar.org.uk/kalarm