|
||||||||
|
This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
||||||||
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Thank you for coming back to me, with an explanation to the issue.
You understood my issue correctly, except the 26 warnings are style warnings. I do not know which manual you are referring to!?
As CPPCheck has error/issue levels with one level being error, I would definitely name it “issue” there/in the tooltip. I am not sure how consitent CPPCheck itself is in this respect, but it should definitely conciously use this distinction itself (code/documentation/CPPCheck GUI).
Given your description, I would expect all levels (Error, Warning, Style, Performance, Portability, Information, No category) to effect this then.
In the previously described situiation, the jobs severity evaluation has marked: Error, Warning, Style, Performance and Information.
I guess the settings “Severity evaluation” applies only to “Build status” then? Personally, I would expect the severity evaluation settings to be under the label Build status as well then. Not sure if Jenkins has a different guideline on this!?
In another job and build, I got:
Error 2
Warning 677 +1
Style 3172
Performance 672
Portability 22
Information 2123
No category 0
Hence, one new Warning (only).
The Job is configured with (red bubble) New = 1 as well, and has the severity evaluation marked: Error, Warning
Given your description, I would expect the build to have been marked as a failure. It did not though. Is there an issue with evaluating Warning-level cppcheck “errors”/issues here? Or is this a misconception again?