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

List:       wine-devel
Subject:    Re: Regarding Coverity
From:       Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2022-12-12 22:15:18
Message-ID: CAMMLpeTVQe2DV+BT7yKnqYeEURTzOqXiqGfoa0XOi4_WLV3ZJA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 2:56 PM Fabian Maurer <dark.shadow4@web.de> wrote:
> 
> I'm sometimes working through the issues Coverity scan reported, and I come across \
> a lot of issues that I consider false positives. I however am not 100% comfortable \
> marking them as such, just in case I am wrong... 
> What's the policy on that? Are those getting reviewed by other devs? Should I just \
> mark them as false positives if I think they are?

In my opinion, if you are reasonably confident that a "defect" is a
false positive then it is helpful to mark it as a false positive.
Other developers can change it back if you make a mistake, and
Coverity keeps a "triage history" of these changes so that it is clear
if there has been a disagreement.

While we're on the subject, it would be very helpful to split defects
found in the "libs" directory into a separate Coverity component,
similar to how we split the tests into a separate component.

-Alex


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