Joseph Hickey

This was discussed in today's CCB, and also in discussion on https://github.com/nasa/cFE/commit/e5be0612ad6bf9db09ddf640306a65292abce2d5 My concern is that all three numeric version numbers (major, minor, revision) are important for identification of what...

Rebased this PR to current main branch

The unused variable static analysis warning is fixed, but code coverage is now complaining. The "missed branches" that it is reporting are mostly due to the fact that the `switch`...

Most "switch" cases now fixed (code coverage-wise) by adding a default case that does nothing, and always going through it. Looking at other modules there are still some code coverage...

There is also a CMake GUI tool that can be used to configure this stuff. I haven't tried it, but I think it relies on these being a "cache" variables...

I like the idea of a make target to run cppcheck.

This is a false positive. I think it was "detected" by tools in the past, hence the comment here: https://github.com/nasa/cFE/blob/7f5ebcd15032fe31e7ef0e5ff4ef624d51d66e16/modules/es/fsw/src/cfe_es_apps.c#L600-L605 Basically - the `CFE_ES_TaskId_FromOSAL()` call can never fail, it always...

Should be ready now. This now has two separate buffers (cmd and tlm) and allows either operation (checksum, timestamp) to independently work or not work on either buffer.

Function that generates tables starts here in the testcase code: https://github.com/nasa/cFE/blob/37f1d28df44aa7a858555b92f0c20310a6803b9f/modules/cfe_testcase/src/tbl_content_mang_test.c#L278-L378 The main issue is that it assumes a simple `OS_write(fh2, &buf, sizeof(buf.Content))` will adequately write the table file content....

Still have some (known) coverage and test workflow issues to solve in here, but wanted to get this going for CCB review today.