Lint use's inline comments to help it, and I still frequently use the "// FALLTHROUGH" comment just because it's a good comment IMO. While odd constructions and unusual programming style can confuse LINT from time to time, the majority of material that LINT locates should deserve the programmer's attention." Thus we have designed this version of LINT to report situations that are usually signs of errors. The designers have tried to chart a course between too much laxness (which may miss significant irregularities) and too much nit-picking (which produces quantities of irrelevant output that you will likely ignore). "Before we begin, we should note that it is inevitable that LINT will miss some problems and will also complain about code that turns out to be valid. I don't know where the official lint documentation lives, but I just found some documentation as. I would position Coder as a helpful tool - a friend rather than a nasty drill sergeant - that gracefully steps aside when it reaches its limitations. This would not be perfect, but I'd rather accept a rare false ignore over having to fight with Coder all of the time. Coder could display these hashes as part of each message, and we could then put them where we currently put the line numbers. the name of the enclosing class or function). I would propose calculating hashes of the offending lines (based on the content of the line without leading space, and possibly the context, i.e. Those of us who might strive for perfection (zero tolerance) should not be forced to deface their code with Coder ignores. This has the advantage that the "ignore" is right where the problem is, so it'll never get lost, and it can be double-checked at any time. One way to fix this problem would be to use inline comments (either above-the-line or at-the-end-of-the-line). This is most objectionable when running Coder as part of the testbot to check patches, because it causes warnings to pop up that have previously been white-listed by the maintainer and that are completely unrelated to the patch. Aside of the fact that it's currently too buggy to be usable (see #1626420: Meta: get Coder and qa.d.o to work), it's very hard to maintain, because line numbers obviously change whenever a file is touched. There already exists a mechanism for white-listing warnings, but it is based on listing file names and line numbers. / be clear, these workarounds do indeed make Doxygen ignore the inheritance relationship, but I'd prefer not to unnecessarily pollute my code base, especially if there's a better / cleaner way to accomplish my goal.The notorious #526074: False suggestion: table names should be enclosed in issue amply demonstrates that Coder needs a mechanism to deal with false positives, because these are very demotivating for people who would be inclined to establish a zero-tolerance policy on their own code. Then ensure that the following two directives are set inside the Doxyfile: For completeness, I'll include both here: To be fair, I have found 2 workarounds, but they both involve putting conditional statements into my code. The Base class always shows up in my collaboration diagram. I've tried this on both Doxygen 1.8.6 and 1.8.11 and with different permutations of Base wildcards (Base*, *as*, etc), same behavior. However, I've found that this does not work: The Base class still shows up in my collaboration diagram for Derived. Now, when I run Doxygen, I don't want to see Base class in the generated collaboration diagram.Īt first glance, it seems that the cleanest way to do this would be to use the EXCLUDE_SYMBOLS directive in my Doxyfile. Let's say my class definition looks like this: I'm trying to get Doxygen to ignore an inheritance relationship when drawing collaboration diagrams.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |