-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
ValueFlow: extracted more code into separate files #6449
Conversation
8ed72f1
to
0863c01
Compare
abb5fdc
to
48074b5
Compare
@danmar can this be merged? It is not different in principal from the previous change I did in this and it blocks a lot of follow-ups (including prototyping some of the bigger refactoring still needed). |
Isn't this going too extreme? Putting every function in a separate file. There are many small files that are less than 100 lines of code. |
This is just because these are the low-hanging cases. And it is quite possible we might enhance the steps in the future so there might be more code. This also allows us to actually write a unit test for each of these. It also makes it way easier to review the code (and I have a bunch of smaller cleanups coming). |
I would still say it's pretty extreme to put each function in a separate file. We could end up with 1000's of files if you continue to refactor cppcheck. As far as I see we can still write the same unit tests if we have several functions in a file. |
We are not extracting an infinite number of functions but a finite number of passes with differing complexity. Some other functionality will also be factored out but those involve a lot of code. |
d70f2b5
to
b9b851f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggest we split it up into larger chunks. splitting out each function into a separate file that is extreme to me. how about a file for all "non-analyzer" passes.
I would not want that we continue and split up astutils tokenizer etc like this.
this was always the plan from the beginning so the previous PR should have never been approved and there was some back and froth while this could have been brought up.
I am not going to do that. |
…)" This reverts commit 25d7921.
No description provided.