Added linters: cppcheck and cpplint

[ahcorde]

Added cppcheck and cpplint to reach QL2.

The strategy it's to download the cppcheck and cpplint scripts from ament_lint package and run them as tests.

@brawner @Blast545 what do you think?

Signed-off-by: ahcorde [email protected]

[Blast545]

Why not adding ament_copyright as well? To deal with the license/copyright parts of the REP-2004.

Otherwise, sounds as a cool approach, those tests will appear under CI for console_bridge_vendor?

[scpeters]

it looks like travis-ci didn't run on the latest commit

do we need to switch to GitHub actions?

[ahcorde]

I added an empty commit to re-run CI. Right now travis-ci is working but failing. ( I think it's because of the python version)

[scpeters]

it looks like travis is using trusty for CI; feel free to update that to a more recent version

[brawner]

This is a really cool PR. Since this is neither a ROS 1 package nor a ROS 2 package (technically), what's the rationale for using ament's linters and configurations? Are there other more appropriate lint configurations for this package's 'style'?

[ahcorde]

Ament's linters wrap some utilities such as cppcheck or cpplint. I'm downloading these scripts from our packages to use the same version as in ROS 2.

For example cppcheck is integrated in CMake, adding the following line:

set(CMAKE_CXX_CPPCHECK "cppcheck")

but the linter will be checked during the compilation process and we want to include this as a specific tests that's why I added the logic.

We can add uncrustify.

[brawner]

I guess the question is: why ROS 2 style configurations instead of ROS 1 style?

[scpeters]

I guess the question is: why ROS 2 style configurations instead of ROS 1 style?

I think it could go either way. ROS 2 style sounds fine to me

[brawner]

Totally. I don't have a preference one way or the other, but I was worried others might. I just wanted to capture some of the thought behind the choice. This PR cuts down line lengths to 100 from 120 for example.

[scpeters]

Totally. I don't have a preference one way or the other, but I was worried others might.

we can listen for objections, but in the absence of any, I think the ros2 style can be used

[ahcorde]

My thought was the following: this request came from ROS 2 Quality levels. I can't remember any ROS 1 packages taking care about linters. That's why I decided use ament's linters. Open to include/remove others

[ahcorde]

@scpeters, 👷 travis-ci is working fine 😃

[ahcorde]

@scpeters I think all the comments have been addressed. Feel free to merge it when you consider

[scpeters]

I think at the STATUS level, these messages will not be shown during a colcon build, though they would be at a WARNING level. I think that is fine, but I wanted to confirm this is the style of verbosity that is preferred

[ahcorde]

Changed c8efe01