On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 09:44:15AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:49:40AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > Coverity (correctly) identified an issue[1] where, after the recent > > rework[2], the internal flag, used by argparse to track what arguments > > were previously encountered or not, was out of range for the type and no > > longer having any effect. Fixing this flag to be back into range then, > > somewhat surprisingly, caused a number of unit test failures to occur. > > > > The reason for these failures is that the tracking of args encountered > > is done via setting an internal flag on the user-passed arguments > > object. In the unit tests, this caused issues where the flags field was > > not getting properly reset between calls to the parse operation. [This > > is only an issue after the rework, because previously information like > > param type and optionality was encoded in the flags, so they were more > > often reset during testing]. > > > > Rather than fixing the tests directly to always reset the flags, which > > is simply working around the issue IMHO, this patchset instead fixes the > > issue in a more user-friendly way by changing the library to never > > modify the user-passed structure - making it completely safe to reuse > > across multiple calls. This is done in the first two patches. > > > > The final, third patch, adds an additional unit test to check that the > > tracking of flags being seen or not, and the handling of the > > "RTE_ARGPARSE_FLAG_SUPPORT_MULTI" flag is correct. This closes a gap in > > testing, since the original issue of the flag being out-of-range should > > have been caught in testing, rather than having to rely on coverity. > > > > [1] Coverity Issue: 470190 > > [2] > > https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/commit/04acc21beeeb78477b15a3f497d3628fd70a6a9f > > > > Bruce Richardson (3): > > argparse: track parsed arguments internally > > argparse: mark parameter struct as const > > test/argparse: add test for repeated arguments > > > Hi Chengwen, > > ping for review. I think this bug should be fixed for RC2. >
Second ping! This patchset (indirectly) fixes an issue in the library, so should be included in the release. Can you please review? Thanks, /Bruce
