On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:22:29PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > Oh, I didn't know about test-lint. Is there a place that documents > the various checks you run, so I can avoid slowing you down? Ones I > know about: > > Already documented: > * `make DEVELOPER=1` (from CodingGuidelines) > * running tests (from SubmittingPatches) > > Stuff I've seen you mention in emails over time: > * linux/scripts/checkpatch.pl > * git grep -e '\<inline\>' --and --not -e 'static inline' -- \*.h > * make -C t/ test-lint test-lint is supposed to be run automatically as part of "make test" (or "make prove"), unless you've specifically disabled it by setting TEST_LINT. And it does complain for me with your patches. If it doesn't for you, then we have a bug to fix. :) I won't be surprised, though, if you just ran "./t6036" manually before sending, since your patches literally didn't touch any other files. In theory we could push some of the linting down into the test scripts themselves (some of it, like the &&-linter, is there already by necessity). But it might also end up annoying, since usually dropping down to manual single-test runs means you're trying to debug something, and extra linting processes could get in the way. > Are there others? I like: make SANITIZE=address,undefined test though it's pretty heavy-weight (but not nearly as much as valgrind). You probably also need BLK_SHA1=Yes, since the default DC_SHA1 has some unaligned loads that make UBSan complain. We should maybe teach the Makefile to do that by default. I've also been playing with clang's scan-build. It _did_ find a real bug recently, but it has a bunch of false positives. Stefan runs Coverity against pu periodically. IIRC It's a pain to run yourself, but the shared results can be mailed to you, or you can poke around at https://scan.coverity.com/projects/git. That _also_ has a ton of false positives, but it's good about cataloguing them so the periodic email usually just mentions the new ones. -Peff
