Skip to content

Conversation

@vkucera
Copy link
Collaborator

@vkucera vkucera commented Dec 11, 2025

Please double-check the changes carefully.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 11, 2025

O2 linter results: ❌ 154 errors, ⚠️ 144 warnings, 🔕 91 disabled

@github-actions github-actions bot changed the title Fix problems found by Cppcheck [Common] Fix problems found by Cppcheck Dec 11, 2025
@vkucera
Copy link
Collaborator Author

vkucera commented Dec 16, 2025

@ddobrigk Which PDG code should be used to fix the duplicated condition in Common/TableProducer/selectionStudyTable.cxx?

@vkucera
Copy link
Collaborator Author

vkucera commented Dec 18, 2025

@ddobrigk Ping

ddobrigk
ddobrigk previously approved these changes Dec 18, 2025
@ddobrigk
Copy link
Collaborator

@ddobrigk Which PDG code should be used to fix the duplicated condition in Common/TableProducer/selectionStudyTable.cxx?

Sorry, overlooked this. That second loop should be removed, as it is spurious (in a part of the code that was in the end not used for anything significnat yet, so no big deal)

@vkucera
Copy link
Collaborator Author

vkucera commented Dec 19, 2025

@ddobrigk Which PDG code should be used to fix the duplicated condition in Common/TableProducer/selectionStudyTable.cxx?

Sorry, overlooked this. That second loop should be removed, as it is spurious (in a part of the code that was in the end not used for anything significnat yet, so no big deal)

I removed the duplicated block.

@vkucera vkucera marked this pull request as ready for review January 13, 2026 05:03
@vkucera vkucera requested review from a team, alibuild, iarsene, jgrosseo and ktf as code owners January 13, 2026 05:03
@ddobrigk
Copy link
Collaborator

Can someone from the TPC crew perhaps just take another look at the loop that was touched by this PR? @amaringarcia - thanks!

@lubynets
Copy link
Contributor

Can someone from the TPC crew perhaps just take another look at the loop that was touched by this PR? @amaringarcia - thanks!

Dear All,
I had a look at the PR on Ana's request. It looks fine to me: the PR either fixes c++ issues without change of the observed behavior, or changes the observed behavior in a correct side.
The only thing which is not obvious to me without knowledge of the context is the removed loop. But since David indicated that loop as spurious, probably the removal is fine.
Or was your, @ddobrigk, question related to a specific loop in the PR, in particular the logic of the mentioned one?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants