-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
Fix MISRA_C_2012 rule 8.2 violation #845
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #845 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 93.77% 93.77%
=======================================
Files 6 6
Lines 3179 3179
Branches 885 885
=======================================
Hits 2981 2981
Misses 91 91
Partials 107 107
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
chinglee-iot
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we also elaborate what could be the problem if parameter name is not specified in the prototype?
Suggest we still following the naming convention for the parameters.
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
|








Fix MISRA_C_2012 rule 8.2 violation
Description
Misra Rule 8.2
MISRA violation
The parameters in any function prototype should be named. The parameter names can provide useful information regarding the function interface and a mismatch between a declaration and definition might be indicative of a programming error.
The function prototype:
Fix
Test Steps
N/A.
Checklist:
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.