ConjuringCoffee
ConjuringCoffee
Then how do you expect deletions to be handled by the background logic anyway? If the files existed after the first background job execution, why would a second background job...
Related: https://github.com/SAP/abap-cleaner/issues/28
This implementation is insufficient. If the RFC function module is not found on the target system, then the checks just don't result in any results. The error must be handled...
(I have not forgotten about this open development. I hope I'll have some time to tackle this soon.)
I know we need the checksum for exemptions on findings level, so I temporarily adapted the checksum handling for check 102. I call method `enable_checksum` in the constructor and pass...
The attribute `USES_CHECKSUM` used to be set in the constructor, but it was changed in #950.
@jrodriguez-rc, can you please review my changes? Your change in #950 moved setting `USES_CHECKSUM` out of the constructor which made it impossible to create exemptions on finding levels. I didn't...
@jrodriguez-rc, thanks for the test. Do you see any problems with the new handling of the attribute `USES_CHECKSUM`? I'm asking because it reverts some of your changes,
@larshp, do we even need this piece of logic? You introduced this logic in commit 8314019cb8ee, but I don't really understand why. Do you still remember over 10 years later?...
Wait, no, I am getting results for _a single_ SAP standard object, MM06EF0B_BUCHEN_2. No idea why. Adapting the check to use `UNAM` instead of `CNAM` would then be my suggestion.