Pieter De Gendt

> > Maybe we could turn the compliance check into a warning instead of an error? > > That's another issue, AFAIK you can't just have an "informational" check in...

@fabiobaltieri I've updated the PR to add a "notice" annotation to the file: See [the test PR](https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/75117/files)

> Cool, still it's unclear what the endgame is but I don't necessarily hate this. :-) If a reviewer agrees with clang-format, he can simply comment with "Fix the formatting,...

> setting this for 4.0, need to see this more tested, having a new compliance check appear while we are stablizing and depending on how much noise it will create...

> Adding DNM only because the PR still seems to have some ongoing discussion about the overall idea but it meets the merge criteria so we avoid accidentally merging it....

@kartben you suggested to mark the first line instead of the last, what to do here?

> > Or another way to answer would be: @nashif do you have a suggestion on what would be not confusing, to you at least? > > as I already...

@nashif @kartben I've reverted back to putting the annotation at the end, is this a good start to get something in and evaluate? See the test PR #75117 to verify...

Verify that `tox` runs on your local machine before pushing :)

The compilation database emitted from zephyr is CMake vanilla: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/7f8cc43a0b5e675569866b7364ab34ba8ebd4e0a/cmake/sca/codechecker/sca.cmake#L8-L9 ```cmake # CodeChecker uses the compile_commands.json as input set(CMAKE_EXPORT_COMPILE_COMMANDS ON) ```