Skip to content

feat: Add parse step to per-file rule - #345

Merged
furtib merged 6 commits into
Ericsson:mainfrom
furtib:per-file-parse
Oct 19, 2026
Merged

furtib merged 6 commits into
Ericsson:mainfrom
furtib:per-file-parse

Conversation

@furtib

@furtib furtib commented Oct 6, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Why:
We want complete feature parity between the monolithic and the per-file codechecker rules.

What:

  • Created a parse step for the per_file rule, reusing the one used for the monolithic version.

Addresses:
Fixes: #279

Depends on: #311

@furtib
furtib requested a review from Szelethus October 6, 2026 15:16
@furtib furtib self-assigned this Oct 6, 2026
@furtib furtib added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 6, 2026
@furtib
furtib force-pushed the per-file-parse branch 4 times, most recently from 0956aaa to 35d740f Compare October 9, 2026 06:05
Move logging into common.py

Fix lint issues

Update expected action number (since we added an extra parse action)

Undo changes to codechecker script
Comment thread docs/codechecker.md
Comment thread src/per_file.bzl
@furtib
furtib requested a review from Szelethus October 16, 2026 12:30

@Szelethus Szelethus left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do I understand correctly that we got rid of the log file? SHould that warrant a major revision? I think so.

Comment thread src/common.py
Comment thread src/per_file.bzl
Comment thread src/per_file.bzl
@furtib

furtib commented Oct 16, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I definitely did not get rid of the log (or anything), its still there. It just makes more sense to expose the result.txt file (thats job is to contain the parse commands result) rather than the log files.

I restored it to use the log file. My reasoning for using results.txt is thinking about a fix for: #358 (which should be using results.json)

@Szelethus Szelethus left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay, I've tried this out and it works fine, and it seems to not contain any breaking changes. Well done, Tibi! LGTM

@furtib
furtib merged commit 95bb3b8 into Ericsson:main Oct 19, 2026
4 checks passed
@furtib
furtib deleted the per-file-parse branch October 19, 2026 09:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add option to CodeChecker parse into the HTML format

2 participants