Codecov Reviews

Cppcheck Reviews

Codecov mentions (18)

• To Review or Not to Review: The Debate on Mandatory Code Reviews

  If you're actively testing your codebase, which I hope you are, consider integrating a code coverage automatic checker such as codecov. This tool can alert if the coverage drops below a threshold. While I've had positive experiences with such tools, it's worth mentioning that the adoption process may pose some challenges. - Source: dev.to / about 1 month ago

• DevOps CI/CD Quick Start Guide with GitHub Actions 🛠️🐙⚡️

  The code coverage is printed out in the Coverage Report step but it is useful to track code coverage over time and have a repository badge which shows the current coverage percentage. There are many different code coverage and testing applications but we will use CodeCov. - Source: dev.to / 7 months ago

• Build an Open Source Project: Behind the Scenes

  Usually, you can't build a product without using various tools. Some of them can be free, and some of them can be commercial. The great benefit of working on Open Source projects is that a lot of companies with commercial products have special offers for non-commercial development. In the case of the "xq" utility, which is written in Go, I use GoLand IDE by JetBrains. I paid for it for several months but later... - Source: dev.to / 11 months ago

• CI CD strategies for UI apps and deployed services

  This YAML file details the CI implementation, including combined code coverage with CodeCov. For a simpler example without Cypress parallelization and code coverage, check the Github Actions YAML file of this template. The ideas presented here can be applied to any front-end application. - Source: dev.to / 12 months ago

• Almost 1000 applications this year, still no job.

  High unit-test coverage, and automated coverage reports on your repo by something like Codecov. Source: about 1 year ago

Cppcheck mentions (10)

• Configuring Cppcheck, Cpplint, and JSON Lint

  I dedicated Sunday morning to going over the documentation of the linters we use in the project. The goal was to understand all options and use them in the best way for our project. Seeing their manuals side by side was nice because even very similar things are solved differently. Cppcheck is the most configurable and best documented; JSON Lint lies at the other end. - Source: dev.to / 3 months ago

• Enforcing Memory Safety?

  Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code. Source: 12 months ago

• Static Code analysis

  For my own projects, I used cppcheck. You can check out that tool to get a feel. Depending on what industry your in, you might need to follow a standard like Misra. Source: about 1 year ago

• How do you not shoot yourself in the foot ?

  Https://cppcheck.sourceforge.io/ (there are many other static analysis tools, I just haven't used them or didn't care for them). Source: about 1 year ago

• Linting tool for prohibiting the use of specific std types

  Sounds like something that could simply be communicated with the team that writes the tests. Unless you have dozens of such classes. In that case, you could just use e.g. Cppcheck and add a rule (regular expression) that searches for usages of the forbidden classes. Source: over 1 year ago