minor code smells in static code analysis about asdf HOT 4 CLOSED

If these aren't an issue for the benchmarking I'm inclined to leave the code as-is. The cmp and type uses are within the vendorized jsonschema which will hopefully be replaced with a dependency if jsonschema re-adds the features required by asdf.

As far as I'm aware,buffer is a builtin only in python 2, perhaps sonarqube isn't scanning for only python 3 issues?

from asdf.

ok, sounds good to me then! I'll mark the issues as "ignore" in sonarqube

from asdf.

Do these cause any issue for the benchmarking?

Looking over the "smells" I see:

• several in the copied/vendorized jsonschema
• uses of the word 'buffer'. I guess this is too generic of a word for sonarqubes liking?

from asdf.

Do these cause any issue for the benchmarking?

Looking over the "smells" I see:

• several in the copied/vendorized jsonschema
• uses of the word 'buffer'. I guess this is too generic of a word for sonarqubes liking?

There weren't any issues with benchmarking; it had a bunch of even more minor (minor-er?) suggestions that I ignored, but in this case it said cmp, type, and buffer are apparently already built-in functions / object names, so that might cause insidious errors

from asdf.