Skip to content

C++: Simplify use of guard conditions in cpp/missing-check-scanf #15997

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged

Conversation

MathiasVP
Copy link
Contributor

These now use the new predicates added in #15958 and #15980

@MathiasVP MathiasVP requested a review from a team as a code owner March 20, 2024 16:53
@github-actions github-actions bot added the C++ label Mar 20, 2024
@MathiasVP MathiasVP added the no-change-note-required This PR does not need a change note label Mar 20, 2024
@jketema
Copy link
Contributor

jketema commented Mar 21, 2024

I approved, but that's under the condition that the alert changes shown in DCA are correct.

@MathiasVP
Copy link
Contributor Author

  • 2 new FPs on cmake and 4 new on openjdk.
  • 1 FP removed on cmake, 1 on linux and 8 on erlang

(More FPs removed than introduced 🎉)

The new FPs are clearly things that should be fixed by making the Guards library smarter. So I'm leaning to accept these as FPs that will magically disappear once we improve the logic of the Guards library.

@MathiasVP MathiasVP merged commit 7fb6426 into github:main Mar 21, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C++ no-change-note-required This PR does not need a change note
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants