re-worded some error messages and avoid using product name #8074
Conversation
|
|
||
| default: | ||
| throw InternalError(nullptr, std::string("Unexpected action '") + action + "' in MathLib::calculate(). Please report this to Cppcheck developers."); | ||
| throw InternalError(nullptr, std::string("Unexpected action '") + action + "' in MathLib::calculate(). Please report this to the developers."); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not so sure about explicit mentions to report this. I would hope that users are reporting any of the internal errors they cannot fix by themselves.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not so sure about explicit mentions to report this. I would hope that users are reporting any of the internal errors they cannot fix by themselves.
Yes this can be discussed. I don't see many such reports either because people don't report or because they don't see this. Personally, I rarelly report bugs I see in software.
Please report this to the developers.
this sentence could be interpreted as we are saying that the developers of the checked code should fix this themselves.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please report this to the developers.
this sentence could be interpreted as we are saying that the developers of the checked code should fix this themselves.
Right - this made it ambiguous. I will just drop it as a whole.
firewave
force-pushed
the
cppcheck-errstr
branch
from
e21ca8c to
c8bf1a3
Compare
| "TemplateSimplifier: max template recursion (" | ||
| + std::to_string(mSettings.maxTemplateRecursion) | ||
| + ") reached for template '"+typeForNewName+"'. You might want to limit Cppcheck recursion.", | ||
| + ") reached for template '"+typeForNewName+"'. You might want to adjust the template recursion limit.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if we should mention that the limit should be adjusted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
imho I prefer to mention that it CAN be adjusted not that it SHOULD be adjusted. This change lgtm.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should probably drop that sentence as a whole. If you reference to a knob we might need to mention it but then that would be a CLI option and be of no value for GUI user (thinking of that we should never mention any option in the messages - but something for later).
| msg = "This file is not analyzed. Cppcheck failed to extract a valid configuration. Use -v for more details."; | ||
| msg += "\nThis file is not analyzed. Cppcheck failed to extract a valid configuration. The tested configurations have these preprocessor errors:"; | ||
| msg = "This file is not analyzed. No working configuration could be extracted. Use -v for more details."; | ||
| msg += "\nThis file is not analyzed. No working configuration could be extracted. The tested configurations have these preprocessor errors:"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aside from dropping the product name I think this explains it better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It still feels a bit awkward but at least it is a bit more specific and the product name is gone.
| ErrorMessage errmsg(std::move(locationList), mFile0, Severity::information, | ||
| (headerType==SystemHeader) ? | ||
| "Include file: <" + header + "> not found. Please note: Cppcheck does not need standard library headers to get proper results." : | ||
| "Include file: <" + header + "> not found. Please note: Standard library headers do not need to be provided to get proper results." : |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aside from dropping the product name I think this explains it better.
firewave
force-pushed
the
cppcheck-errstr
branch
from
c8bf1a3 to
72883d3
Compare
firewave
changed the title
firewave
force-pushed
the
cppcheck-errstr
branch
from
72883d3 to
d2fb776
Compare
|
2 participants
No description provided.