-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
Deal with cases in which file is a nullptr in DQMRootSource.cc #39895
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39895/32812
|
A new Pull Request was created by @perrotta (Andrea Perrotta) for master. It involves the following packages:
@emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @syuvivida, @pmandrik, @micsucmed, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild please test |
-1 Failed Tests: RelVals-INPUT RelVals-INPUTThe relvals timed out after 4 hours. Comparison SummarySummary:
|
It seems to me that |
e3d7bce
to
ecb7f8c
Compare
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39895/32832
|
Pull request #39895 was updated. @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @syuvivida, @pmandrik, @micsucmed, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-50caee/28617/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
As hinted by the static analyzer, see also #39852 (comment), there is a logic error in the code of DQMRootSource.cc (this line) when
file = nullptr
If I understand correctly the logic behind, this PR should be the fix for it
I write a PR instead of a github issue because in this case it looks faster to me. But please @Dr15Jones and/or @cms-sw/dqm-l2 comment here if you think that the fix is correct, or if you suggest something else instead
PR validation:
It builds.
If the fix is correct, there should be no differences in outputs