> I hope that it can become easier to clarify where unexpected duplicate keys > would occur as in my test approach.
There is the possibility to apply information according to a clarification request on a topic like “Checking the handling of unique keys/indexes” from 2014-12-20. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sqlalchemy/klmUwiirIQw/g6NLiVAGGAIJ elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/list_condition_checks_after_function_calls2c.cocci drivers/gpu/drm/mcde/mcde_drv.c … Using SQLAlchemy version: 1.3.15 … %% function: mcde_probe line: 322 %% function: mcde_probe line: 403 action|check|"source file"|line|column … How should the error reporting be clarified around such source code places? https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.6.3/source/drivers/gpu/drm/mcde/mcde_drv.c#L307 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/mcde/mcde_drv.c?id=8f3d9f354286745c751374f5f1fcafee6b3f3136#n308 I observe that the following SmPL code variant can result also in a significant difference. @find@ expression action, check, result; position p; statement is, es; @@ result = action(...); if ( ( <+... result ...+> & check@p ) ) is else es How will the application of SmPL conjunctions evolve further? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
