honggyu.kim abandoned this revision. honggyu.kim added a comment. Hi Anna,
I was away from the office for 3 weeks. Sorry for the late answer. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12906#256215, @zaks.anna wrote: > I find it very confusing to have 2 different fields for bug identification - > issue_hash and BugId. Why do we need to treat the HTML reports differently > from plist files? I have read Gabor's patch in http://reviews.llvm.org/D10305, and I see that patch has now accepted. I also agree with his approach and your comment for checker identification as well. But the reason why I made BugId was for HTML report comparison. As you mentioned before, CmpRuns.py does not work with HTML files, but we need to know which HTML report is newly generated among the entire HTML bug reports. We can get limited source location information with current CmpRuns.py. But I think we can also compare two different sets of HTML bug reports, then show which HTML reports are newly generated. HTML report can be more helpful for the developers who made the new bugs rather than a single line of bug information in text format. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D10305#224956, @zaks.anna wrote: > For example, you could keep the information about the reports in the plist > files and use those to render the reports in HTML. If you're okay with adding HTML file name in plist for each bug, I will prepare a new patch for that. Thanks for the review! http://reviews.llvm.org/D12906 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
