Spotuino VS Cppcheck

I created a project where the Spotify app is controlled using an IR remote and receiver. The Arduino communicates keywords (e.g. pause, forward, and back) based on the IR receiver back to the Python script through the COM3 port, which activates the PyAutoGui's functions. A 1602 LCD is used to display the song's status to the user. The repo is on my GitHub": https://github.com/akkik04/Spotuino

This project is simply made to demonstrate the functionality of the Arduino Uno with the Python language. The project controls the Spotify app using an IR remote and receiver. The Arduino communicates keywords (e.g. pause, forward, and back) based on the IR receiver back to the Python script through the COM3 port, which activates the PyAutoGui's functions. A 1602 LCD is used to display the song's status to the user. The link to the repo is: https://github.com/akkik04/Spotuino. I'll be making a few more updates to the project, stay tuned!

This project controls the Spotify app using just 3 buttons that are wired to the Arduino Uno Rev3. The Arduino communicates a few keywords (i.e. pause, forward, and back) to the Python script through the COM3 port and uses PyAutoGui's functions to pause/play track, play the previous track, and play the next track. The link to the repo is: https://github.com/akkik04/Arduino-Controlled-Spotify

Would you be able to take a look at my repo on GitHub, all the code is there and easily accessible? If not then we can work something out. Link to repo is: https://github.com/akkik04/Arduino-Controlled-Spotify

I dedicated Sunday morning to going over the documentation of the linters we use in the project. The goal was to understand all options and use them in the best way for our project. Seeing their manuals side by side was nice because even very similar things are solved differently. Cppcheck is the most configurable and best documented; JSON Lint lies at the other end.

Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code.

Also check out (cppcheck)[https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck] if you want more static analysis

My browser refuses to open that link. This is better: https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck

cppcheck - Extensible C/C++ static analyzer focused on finding bugs.

and five C/C++ static code analyzers: * clang-tidy * oclint * cppcheck * cpplint (recently added!) * include-what-you-use (recently added!)

Start by feeding your codebase to a static analysis tool like cppcheck, to rule out obvious bound-checking mistakes in it.

Cppcheck is free. I've previously used it with a C++ project.