Re: Why is conflict check on the buildbot green?

[Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>]

I added  https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/37711/ for the DVB-S2-BB
one.  It is a range_string, where arguably a value_string would be clearer,
but the linked-to documentation is currently unavailable.
Martin

On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 11:41 AM Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter () xs4all nl> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Okay, we should at least try to ‘pick the low hanging fruit’ of this. I’ve
> started with these already: 37694
> <https://code.wireshark.org/review/37694>, 37692
> <https://code.wireshark.org/review/37692> and 37697
> <https://code.wireshark.org/review/37697>
> It would be great if at least the obvious cases
> <https://buildbot.wireshark.org/petri-dish/builders/Ubuntu%20Petri%20Dish%20x64/builds/11982/steps/conflict%20check/logs/stdio>
>  can
> be addressed.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jaap
>
>
> On 5 Jul 2020, at 11:57, Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte () gmail com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes it is true ! But I don’t how to set orange with buildbot on this case,
> some others step (clang analyzer check, pre commit...) need this.
>
> And also if it is orange, it is not specific to this change..
> Le dim. 5 juil. 2020 à 11:16, Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter () xs4all nl> a
> écrit :
>
> > Hi Alexis,
> >
> > "issues are not yet fixed” sounds a bit weird for a reason for marking
> > this stage okay (green). That would be the same as... ignoring all the
> > compilation warnings.
> > I’m not expecting it to be marked as error (red), but as warning
> > (orange), calling attention to it. Because I wonder how many are aware of
> > these reported issues.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jaap
> >
> >
> > On 5 Jul 2020, at 11:03, Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte () gmail com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jaap,
> >
> > It is beacuse all issue are not yet fixed (some coming from generated
> > code... or missing spec info to known what the correct fix).
> >
> > Personally, when review code after Petri dish, I try to look different
> > output log, because I know don’t fail it is juste warning.
> >
> > Le dim. 5 juil. 2020 à 08:53, Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter () xs4all nl> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Due to some recent issues with DHCPv6 the buildbot began flagging the
> > > 'conflict check' stage as failed. This drew my attention to the fact that
> > > there is a long list of warnings in there about wrong use of protocol
> > > fields, but once the DHCPv6 issues were fixed the build happily went back
> > > to green for the ‘conflict check’. Why is is not orange with the warning
> > > output?
> > >
> > > This is the output of a recent build:
> > >
> > > 'HI2Operations.latitude' exists multiple times with NOT compatible
> > > types: FT_UINT32 and FT_STRING
> > > 'HI2Operations.longitude' exists multiple times with NOT compatible
> > > types: FT_INT32 and FT_STRING
> > > 'HI2Operations.mcc' exists multiple times with NOT compatible types:
> > > FT_BYTES and FT_UINT32
> > > 'HI2Operations.mnc' exists multiple times with NOT compatible types:
> > > FT_BYTES and FT_UINT32
> > > 'HI2Operations.lai' exists multiple times with NOT compatible types:
> > > FT_BYTES and FT_UINT32
> > > 'acse.result' exists multiple times with NOT compatible types: FT_INT32
> > > and FT_UINT32
> > > 'ain.notificationIndicator' exists multiple times with NOT compatible
> > > types: FT_BYTES and FT_BOOLEAN
> > > 'ain.invoke' exists multiple times with NOT compatible types: FT_INT32
> > > and FT_UINT32
> > > 'ansi_683.reserved' exists multiple times with NOT compatible types:
> > > FT_UINT16 and FT_BOOLEAN
> > > 'ansi_tcap.private' exists multiple times with NOT compatible types:
> > > FT_UINT32 and FT_INT32
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
> Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org
> ?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe