On Tue, 5 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I’m writing this mail to collect thoughts about the need to improve the SAF-*
> comments.
>
> I think we reached a point where we need to use deviations for some violation
> that we want
> to keep in the code with a proper justification and an issue was raised when
> the comment
> cannot be put on a line on its own.
>
> e.g.
>
> If ( condition-1 &&
> condition-2 &&
> [...] )
> {
> ...
> }
>
> For example in the code above, if the violation is in the second condition,
> breaking the conditions
> to have an empty line between them for the SAF-* comment is not ideal, so we
> could maybe
> improve the in-code comment to be used at the end of the line:
>
> e.g.
>
> If ( condition-1 &&
> condition-2 && /* SAF-*-safe [...] */
> [...] )
> {
> ...
> }
>
> This might require also a deviation on the coding style to allow the comment
> to overcome the line length.
>
> Bertrand, from his experience with safety certifications, feels that adding
> this feature could be enough
> to cover the majority of the cases where we need to deviate a violation in
> the code.
>
> Using it consistently in the code base as the only way to deviate a violation
> can also help the adoption
> of the project to people who might want to fix them instead of deviating
> them, the only thing they would need
> to do is to grep for SAF-* to have a rough idea of how many justified
> violation are in the code.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts before I start to implement the feature.
I think we need this feature and in fact we have already been adding it
in an ad-hoc way with /* octal-ok */
It would like to remove octal-ok and use a generic way (SAF) to do the
same.
