I'm currently working on a project, which has to be MISRA 2012 compliant. But in the embedded world, you can't fulfill every MISRA rule. So I have to suppress some messages generated by QA-C. What's he best solution to do this?
I was thinking about making a table in every module header file with references (\ref and \anchor) to the relevant code lines, a description, etc. The first problem is: I can't use the Doxygen markdown table feature, because then the description has to be in one line, because Doxygen tables don't support line breaking. So I thought about using a simple verbatim table, what do you think?
Or is there a way to generate such a table automatically?
Greetings
m0nKeY
According to MISRA, all such undesired rules must be handled by your deviation procedure, given that they are either "required" or "advisory". You are not allowed to deviate from "mandatory" rules. (Strictly speaking, you don't need to invoke the deviation procedure for advisory rules.)
In my experience, the safest and smoothest way by far to do this, is to not allow individual deviations on case-by-case basis. All deviations from MISRA should be stated in your company coding standard, and in order to deviate you have to update that document. Which in turn enforces approval from the document owner, who is preferably the most hardened C veteran you have in the team.
That way, you prevent less experienced team members from misinterpreting the rules and ignoring important rules, simply because they don't understand them and mistake them for false positives. There should be a rationale in the document stating why the rule you deviate from is not feasible for your company.
This means that everyone in the dev team is allowed to deviate from the listed rules at any point, without the need to invoke any form of bureaucracy.
Once you have a setup like this, simply customize your static analyser and remove/ignore the undesired warnings. That way, you get rid of a lot of noise and false warnings from the tool.
To answer your question generally: To create an aggregate occurrence list of anything in doxygen, use \xrefitem
We use this as a tool in our code review process. I tag code with a custom tag \reviewme which adds the function to a list of all code in need of peer review. The next guy can come along and clear that tag. We have another custom tag \reviewedby which does not use \xrefitem but simply puts the reivewers name and the date in the code block saying who reviewed it and when. This had gotten a bit clunky as things have scaled with larget code bases and more developers. Now we're looking into tools that integrate with our version control process to handle this better. But when we started this it worked well and fit a shoestring budget. But that example should give you an idea of is capable.
Here is a screen shot of what the output looks like - proprietary stuff and auto names redacted:
Here is how we added this custom tag as an alias to xrefitem in our doxy file as follows
ALIASES = "reviewme = \xrefitem reviewme \"This section needs peer review\" \"Documentation block or code sections that need peer review\""
To add it from the GUI, you would go to Expert->Project->Aliases and add a line like this
reviewme = \xrefitem reviewme "This section needs peer review" "Documentation block or code sections that need peer review"
Same thing, just no need to put quotes around the whole thing and escape out the inner quotes.
\xrefitem is the underpinning of how things like \todo or \bug work in doxygen. You can make a list of just about anything your heart desires.
Speaking specifically to MISRA exceptions: Lundin's post has lot's of merit. I would consider it. I think a better place to document exceptions to coding standards is in the static analysis tool its self. Many tools have their own annotations where you can categorize the rule violation as 'excused' or whatever. But generally this does not remove them from the list, it allows you just to filter or sort them. Perhaps you can use REGEX in a script that runs prior to doxygen that will replace the tool specific annotation with a custom \xrefitem if you are really concerned. Or vice vera, replace the doxy annotation with your tool's annotation.
Related
I'm getting an error when uploading my customized policy, which is based on Microsoft's SocialAccounts example ([tenant] is a placeholder I added):
Policy "B2C_1A_TrustFrameworkExtensions" of tenant "[tenant].onmicrosoft.com" makes a reference to ClaimType with id "client_id" but neither the policy nor any of its base policies contain such an element
I've done some customization to the file, including adding local account signon, but comparing copies of TrustFrameworkExtensions.xml in the examples, I can't see where this element is defined. It is not defined in TrustFrameworkBase.xml, which is where I would expect it.
I figured it out, although it doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully this helps someone else running into the same issue.
The TrustFrameworkBase.xml is not the same in each scenario. When Microsoft documentation said not to modify it, I assumed that meant the "base" was always the same. The implication of this design is: If you try to mix and match between scenarios then you also need to find the supporting pieces in the TrustFrameworkBase.xml and move them into your extensions document. It also means if Microsoft does provide an update to their reference policies and you want to update, you need to remember which one you implemented originally and potentially which other ones you had to pull from or do line-by-line comparison. Not end of the world, but also not how I'd design an inheritance structure.
This also explains why I had to work through previous validation errors, including missing <DisplayName> and <Protocol> elements in the <TechnicalProfile> element.
Yes - I agree that is a problem.
My suggestion is always to use the "SocialAndLocalAccountsWithMfa" scenario as the sample.
That way you will always have the correct attributes and you know which one to use if there is an update.
It's easy enough to comment out the MFA stuff in the user journeys if you don't want it.
There is one exception. If you want to use "username" instead of "email", the reads/writes etc. are only in the username sample.
One of our designers likes to use mac smart quotes/apostrophes in his mockups, but we don't want them showing up ANYWHERE in the code. Is there a way to create a rule using TSLint that will warn (or even ban) specific characters like this from the entire codebase?
Smart quote example: you’ll
Dumb quote example: you'll
As you can see, it's pretty hard to see the difference and catch them in real time. They don't cause errors, but for consistency we don't want them finding their way in from copy/pastes.
It seems that there is no rule that provides character banning. You can write custom rule as described in the documentation.
See also https://stackoverflow.com/a/40394298/3639633 .
Is there a such thing as a preprocessor whose statements, once processed, disappear completely and get replaced by the target language syntax permanently?
I want to research it on the web but I don't know what term to search for. If I search for "code generator", "templating language", "preprocessor directives", "mixins", "annotations" I get generators whose input becomes the source of truth.
The closest thing I can think of is a macro.
What I'm trying to do
I often have to write code that is verbose and unnecessary manual labor and am looking for a smarter way to input at least the majority of it and have it automatically transformed and only source-control the output (and hand edit if necessary). For example:
Java code - Instead of writing getters/setters, javadoc (perhaps the transformer can be a maven plugin)
HTML - I just want to add URLs, and have my preprocessor automatically convert them to links, images, videos, audio etc. depending on the file extension with some regex substitution (currently I run a perl script via a cron job)
I just want to use it as my own shorthand and not enforce it in my project and make the output editable so that others have to learn a new framework or language (like Protobuf, Stringtemplate, GWT, C hash-defines, PHP, JSP etc).
There should be no direct clue that I used a template/preprocessor to generate it.
What you want is a "program transformation system". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_transformation. (This is a superset of "transpilers" [ugly term]).
A good source-to-source transformation system will let you apply rewrite rules of the form of:
if you see *this*, replace it by *that* if *this_condition*.
You can then take your source code, and run a set of rewrite rules across that code to change it.
The resulting code is "transformed"; the rewrite rules are not visible.
It seems like Transpiler is one way to describe it.
I often find myself reading other developer's C code containing expressions like
ptr->member1.member2[i].another_member.final_member = 42;
and needing to find out what type final_member is. Usually what I do is to track down the chain of types using C tags, starting at the declaration of ptr and digging my way into the chain of members. This is cumbersome and often I'm stuck somewhere scratching my head, asking myself "What was the next member in the chain?" To make matters worse, a simple grep for final_member in the source tree turns up too many false positives due to the name being reused in more than one struct.
Is there a way to make vim give me the answer directly? I'm willing to install any plugin and even type a few characters while the cursor is on the final_member or select the whole expression :-) Non-GUI solutions preferred.
If i'm working on a project with several nested structs i add preview to the completeopt option.
In combination with the excellent omnicppcomplete plugin a tiny scratch window pops up if you select an entry in the completion menu. That scratch window shows some properties of the selected tag. Among other things it contains the search pattern for the tag which in case of a struct member usually contains its datatype.
I really suggest you to use plugin clang_complete (or some other plugin powered by clang) for completion. It will give you pure completion of C/C++/Objective-C code by real compiler, not ugly method by tags. Each item in completion menu also has type of field (that's what you are looking for)
Omnicppcomplete fails often on complicated expressions. Clang works great, since it is real awesome compiler.
Say I come up with some super-duper way of representing some data that I think would be useful for other people to know about and use. Assume I have a 'spec' in some form, even if it might not be a completely formal one: ie, I know how this file format will work already.
How would I then go about releasing this spec to get comments and feedback based on it? How would I get it 'standardised' in some form?
Specifying file formats is difficult. If the data you want to store is trivial, it tends to be trivial. In general however, this is hardly the case. You can use the RFC structure and keywords, but I always found specifying a fileformat in prose a slow, difficult and boring task, also because reading it is likewise difficult.
My suggestion, if you want to follow this way, is to focus on blocks of information. Most of the difficuly is for entities that are optional, and present only if another condition happens, so try to exploit this when partitioning your data.
The best spec, IMHO, is real code with an uberperfect testsuite.
As for standardization, if enough people use it, it becomes a de-facto standard. you don't need an official stamp for it, although when the format is used enough, you could benefit from an official mime type.
To talk about it, well, it depends. I found useful to talk in terms of "object oriented" entities, and also in terms of relationships. Database-like diagrams are very useful on this respect.
Finally, try to find a decent already standard alternative first, or at least try not to deal with the raw bits. There are a lot of perfect container formats out there that free you of many annoying tasks. The choice of the container depends on the actual type of file format (e.g. if you need encryption, interleaving, transactions, etc).
There are a couple of ways I'd go about it, I think.
First, determine if there's a standards body (like W3C, or IEEE) that might be related to your file format. If there is, pitch it to them. I have no idea how receptive they'd be though.
Second, a standard is useless if nobody is using it. Get some momentum behind it. Write a blog post, twitter and make a website about it. Link on programming.reddit.com, and slashdot. Describe it to your friends and colleagues. Post it here on SO, and ask for feedback.
HTH.