-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 248
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
Run custom CMS clang-tidy checks in PR testing. #1514
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @gartung (Patrick Gartung) for branch master. @cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @mrodozov can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. |
please test with cms-sw/cmssw#33186 |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0f0e0d/13582/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
@makortel The summary shows that clang-tidy was run on the PR as expected. |
If the log (which I presume is this one) would have warnings on By the way, what is the difference between "CMS Code checks outputs" and "Static checks outputs"? They both seem to point to the static analyzer report. |
OK. This is a draft PR. The runCMSCodeChecks.log is only supposed to show the output of clang-tidy. The summary page is messed up because I used the same key as Shahzad indicated above. |
Pull request #1514 was updated. |
3 similar comments
Pull request #1514 was updated. |
Pull request #1514 was updated. |
Pull request #1514 was updated. |
please test with cms-sw/cmssw#33186 |
Pull request #1514 was updated. |
please test with cms-sw/cmssw#33215 |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0f0e0d/13828/summary.html CMS Clang-Tidy warnings: There are 1 Clang-Tidy warnings. See https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0f0e0d/13828/llvm-analysis/cmsclangtidy.txt for details. Comparison SummaryThe workflows 140.53 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons Summary:
|
please test for CMSSW_11_1_X |
please test with cms-sw/cmssw#33153 for CMSSW_10_6_X |
looks good |
+externals |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs after it passes the integration tests. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0f0e0d/13834/summary.html Comparison SummaryThe workflows 140.53 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons Summary:
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0f0e0d/13835/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
Alternative way to run EventSetupRecord::get checker.
Resolves cms-sw/framework-team#69