[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: kdepimlibs Coverity Scan Report, Oct 14 2014
From:       "David Jarvie" <djarvie () kde ! org>
Date:       2014-10-16 16:48:25
Message-ID: 0b0b087e743ec243f1d528ed214ea9b9.squirrel () www6 ! sensical ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, October 16, 2014 2:06 pm, Gilles Caulier wrote:
> 2014-10-16 12:29 GMT+02:00 Ben Cooksley <bcooksley@kde.org>:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Gilles Caulier
>> <caulier.gilles@gmail.com> 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

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]