Fix overflow warnings from loop index #3161

[softins]

Short description of changes

Intended to resolve CodeQL messages "Multiplication result converted to larger type".

CHANGELOG: Client: (Refactor) Prevent multiplication result converting to larger type

Context: Fixes an issue?

Fixes: #3161
This fix is an alternative to the PR #3162, and arguably slightly more efficient. It avoids the use of casts.

Does this change need documentation? What needs to be documented and how?

No

Status of this Pull Request

Looks like it fixes the failed checks:
https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamulus/security/code-scanning?query=pr%3A3164

(Before: https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamulus/security/code-scanning?query=branch%3Amain)

What is missing until this pull request can be merged?

Nothing. Ready to go.

Checklist

• I've verified that this Pull Request follows the general code principles
• I tested my code and it does what I want
• My code follows the style guide
• I waited some time after this Pull Request was opened and all GitHub checks completed without errors.
• I've filled all the content above

AUTOBUILD: Please build all targets

[softins]

Runs fine on my pi. I know #3162 (which this replaces) was tagged with the 3.11.0 milestone, but is there any reason this PR couldn't go straight in now?

[pljones]

Any idea what's caused this in the CodeQL check?

[pljones]

However, the "11" rather than the "14" indicates success.

[pljones]

I'm happy for it to go into 3.10.0 as it's not going to affect translations or behaviour.

[softins]

Any idea what's caused this in the CodeQL check?

No, I was going to ask about it. I'll do a bit of digging.

[softins]

I think it's something to do with the autobuild efficiency changes introduced by @hoffie in 51830196b, but I don't really understand what's happening there.

[pljones]

OK, it's probably not something this issue/PR needs to worry about. Maybe raise a new issue?

@ann0see Are you okay with #3161 to 3.10.0 along with this?

[ann0see]

Yes. I'll have a look at it.

[ann0see]

As it's equivalent to the previous behaviour approving.

[ann0see]

Needs a changelog entry

[softins]

Needs a changelog entry

I've lost track of what is now automated and what isn't. Does the "CHANGELOG" line in the above description make anything happen automatically?

[ann0see]

There is a script which does the update but as the change log was manually edited (for merging multiple PRs) we need to add the last few entries manually.

[softins]

we need to add the last few entries manually.

OK, do we know what else is missing, or does someone need to check? I'm happy to look, but won't have time till Friday.

[ann0see]

That's fine. I believe only some Weblate PRs are missing

[pljones]

@ann0see So can the "needs documentation" label be removed here?

[ann0see]

It still needs a change log entry.

[pljones]

That's part of the release process, not the documentation cycle. If something needs editing that we've already generated for the release, it should be documented under the release ticket, not here. Normally automatic Changelog generation would be used, it's only because we're in change freeze that something special is needed.

[ann0see]

Ok. My error then.