Hi Jan,

I think, the description of the configuration fields is little misleading, which probably confused you. It uses word "errors" in meaning of "whatever type of issue". Cppcheck tool reports "errors" (of several types/severities) instead of "issues" or "violations", please check its manual. So, if I understand your description correctly...

• "1" is configured for "New" threshold to fail the build (red circle).
• Build N had 6 errors in total.
• Build N+1 had 4 errors and 26 warnings in total.
• 26 + 4 = 30 and 30 - 6 > 1, so the build was marked as failed, which is fully correct.

I have never used this part of the plugin and I don't know the relevant code much. Did I miss something? If everything I wrote above is correct, do you think I should update the labels and tool tips in the configuration page? The current state is fully OK for me, I'm quite familiar with Cppcheck and the plugin. But new users can have troubles with that. What do you think?

Thanks,
Michal

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?

I will try to simulate the issue and debug the code...

I was referring to cppcheck manual page, e.g. http://linux.die.net/man/1/cppcheck, but it is not important now. I have updated the GUI under JENKINS-23891, it uses word "issue" instead of "error" now.

Code changed in jenkins
User: Michal Turek
Path:
src/main/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/cppcheck/util/CppcheckBuildResultEvaluator.java
http://jenkins-ci.org/commit/cppcheck-plugin/cb4e2040c7a92ac16f8fca293d8e19f313b96fcc
Log:
JENKINS-23185 Setting build status to FAILURE for new error when errors were fixed

• CppcheckBuildResultEvaluator.isErrorCountExceeded() used comparison count > threshold but users expect count >= threshold.
• For example the threshold had to be set to 0 to change build status on 1 new issue. Setting 1 in threshold configuration to detect 1 issue is much better.
• Information in build log extended to contain also the value that exceeded the threshold. Word "errors" replaced by "issues".

Code changed in jenkins
User: Michal Turek
Path:
src/main/java/org/jenkinsci/plugins/cppcheck/util/CppcheckBuildResultEvaluator.java
http://jenkins-ci.org/commit/cppcheck-plugin/87401a045be16953d82178c189ddff52d5154407
Log:
Merge pull request #20 from mixalturek/master

JENKINS-23185 Setting build status to FAILURE for new error when error...

Compare: https://github.com/jenkinsci/cppcheck-plugin/compare/a49002550cbd...87401a045be1

Fixed, will be released in version 1.19.

Thank you very much Michal!

You are welcome