> I think that your issue about something matching or not has nothing to do > with the database code, and you could easily remove it for the purposes of > reporting a concern with Coccinelle.
Software evolution can be continued also together with your constructive feedback. I adapted another SmPL script according to a recent information. https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/17a4592b-92bd-e4c9-8481-7d46616cb...@web.de/T/#m4f59721d2011ac4ded602f2e63e0c63f22a15fa9 https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2020-April/007133.html It can become more interesting to increase also the application of SmPL conjunctions like the following. @find@ expression action, check, result; position p; statement is, es; @@ result = action(...); if@p ( ( <+... result ...+> & check ) ) is else es Now I stumble on corresponding software development challenges. elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/list_condition_checks_after_function_calls2.cocci drivers/gpu/drm/mcde/mcde_drv.c … Using SQLAlchemy version: 1.3.15 … sqlalchemy.exc.IntegrityError: (sqlite3.IntegrityError) UNIQUE constraint failed: pairs.function, pairs.source_file, pairs.line, pairs.column [SQL: INSERT INTO pairs (function, source_file, line, "column", action, "check") VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?)] … I hope that it can become easier to clarify where unexpected duplicate keys would occur as in my test approach. Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
