Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Replace libdparse in UnusedResultChecker #80

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: replace_libdparse
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Replace libdparse in UnusedResultChecker #80

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

Vladiwostok
Copy link
Collaborator

#74 cont

@Vladiwostok Vladiwostok force-pushed the unused-result branch 4 times, most recently from c437932 to fa13c74 Compare January 8, 2024 13:07
RazvanN7
RazvanN7 reviewed Feb 22, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@RazvanN7 RazvanN7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems that you are modifying the tests extensively. Could you please provide an explanation on why that is the case?

RazvanN7
RazvanN7 requested changes Feb 22, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@RazvanN7 RazvanN7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The code is too complex for what we need to do. Refactor by using a single visitation method for statements that calls super.visit.

RazvanN7
RazvanN7 approved these changes Feb 22, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@RazvanN7 RazvanN7 left a comment •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The implementation is OK, now that I better understand what you are doing. But please mind the tests.

@Vladiwostok Vladiwostok changed the title Replace libdparse in UnusedResultChecker [DO NOT MERGE] Replace libdparse in UnusedResultChecker Feb 22, 2024
@Vladiwostok
Copy link
Collaborator Author

[DO NOT MERGE] I think one unit test has been slightly modified after the rebase from Upstream D-scanner. I'll do an extra verification and make sure everything is OK - in the meantime please do not merge this PR

@Vladiwostok Vladiwostok linked an issue Mar 4, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Rebase UnusedResultChecker #93
Open
@Vladiwostok
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The implementation is OK, now that I better understand what you are doing. But please mind the tests.

[DO NOT MERGE] I think one unit test has been slightly modified after the rebase from Upstream D-scanner. I'll do an extra verification and make sure everything is OK - in the meantime please do not merge this PR

The unit tests have changed in the upstream in the last year - that's why the big diff on unit test. Will update & fix

@Vladiwostok Vladiwostok changed the title [DO NOT MERGE] Replace libdparse in UnusedResultChecker Replace libdparse in UnusedResultChecker Mar 7, 2024
@Vladiwostok
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Vladiwostok commented Mar 7, 2024 •
edited

The implementation is OK, now that I better understand what you are doing. But please mind the tests.

[DO NOT MERGE] I think one unit test has been slightly modified after the rebase from Upstream D-scanner. I'll do an extra verification and make sure everything is OK - in the meantime please do not merge this PR

The unit tests have changed in the upstream in the last year - that's why the big diff on unit test. Will update & fix

Fixed

@Vladiwostok Vladiwostok changed the title Replace libdparse in UnusedResultChecker [DO NOT MERGE / CONFLICT] Replace libdparse in UnusedResultChecker Mar 9, 2024
@RazvanN7
Copy link
Collaborator

This issue is in the 'Ready for review' queue, however, it seems there are unaddressed issues. Can you clarify whether this is ready for review or not?

@Vladiwostok Vladiwostok changed the title [DO NOT MERGE / CONFLICT] Replace libdparse in UnusedResultChecker Replace libdparse in UnusedResultChecker Mar 17, 2024
@Vladiwostok
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This issue is in the 'Ready for review' queue, however, it seems there are unaddressed issues. Can you clarify whether this is ready for review or not?

Ready for review

@RazvanN7
Copy link
Collaborator

I find it kind of weird that this is passing all tests (including testing phobos) since you essentially need to perform semantic analysis for this check to work properly and it seems that you are only doing semantic when testing unittests. Is that right?

@RazvanN7
Copy link
Collaborator

Mind the conflict.

@RazvanN7
Copy link
Collaborator

ping

@Vladiwostok
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ping

On hold for now.
#102 has to be implemented first

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@RazvanN7 RazvanN7 RazvanN7 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rebase UnusedResultChecker
2 participants
@Vladiwostok @RazvanN7