Skip to content

Improvement: Mark fetchcontent cmake options as advanced#2238

Merged
lenaploetzke merged 2 commits intomainfrom
mark-fetchcontent-options-as-advanced
Apr 1, 2026
Merged

Improvement: Mark fetchcontent cmake options as advanced#2238
lenaploetzke merged 2 commits intomainfrom
mark-fetchcontent-options-as-advanced

Conversation

@lenaploetzke
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@lenaploetzke lenaploetzke commented Mar 24, 2026

Closes #2239

Describe your changes here:
The cmake options list in ccmake got very long which is why i marked all fetchcontent cmake options as advanced. I think those options are not set very often.

All these boxes must be checked by the AUTHOR before requesting review:

  • The PR is small enough to be reviewed easily. If not, consider splitting up the changes in multiple PRs.
  • The title starts with one of the following prefixes: Documentation:, Bugfix:, Feature:, Improvement: or Other:.
  • If the PR is related to an issue, make sure to link it.
  • The author made sure that, as a reviewer, he/she would check all boxes below.

All these boxes must be checked by the REVIEWERS before merging the pull request:

As a reviewer please read through all the code lines and make sure that the code is fully understood, bug free, well-documented and well-structured.

General

  • The reviewer executed the new code features at least once and checked the results manually.
  • The code follows the t8code coding guidelines.
  • New source/header files are properly added to the CMake files.
  • The code is well documented. In particular, all function declarations, structs/classes and their members have a proper doxygen documentation. Make sure to add a file documentation for each file!
  • All new algorithms and data structures are sufficiently optimal in terms of memory and runtime (If this should be merged, but there is still potential for optimization, create a new issue).

Tests

  • The code is covered in an existing or new test case using Google Test.
  • The code coverage of the project (reported in the CI) should not decrease. If coverage is decreased, make sure that this is reasonable and acceptable.
  • Valgrind doesn't find any bugs in the new code. This script can be used to check for errors; see also this wiki article.

If the Pull request introduces code that is not covered by the github action (for example coupling with a new library):

  • Should this use case be added to the github action?
  • If not, does the specific use case compile and all tests pass (check manually).

Scripts and Wiki

  • If a new directory with source files is added, it must be covered by the scripts/internal/find_all_source_files.sh to check the indentation of these files.
  • If this PR introduces a new feature, it must be covered in an example or tutorial and a Wiki article.

License

  • The author added a BSD statement to doc/ (or already has one).

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov bot commented Mar 24, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 78.45%. Comparing base (c1a2993) to head (07bb8fe).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2238   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.45%   78.45%           
=======================================
  Files         115      115           
  Lines       19184    19184           
=======================================
  Hits        15050    15050           
  Misses       4134     4134           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@spenke91 spenke91 self-assigned this Mar 30, 2026
@spenke91 spenke91 self-requested a review March 30, 2026 13:54
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@spenke91 spenke91 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great, thanks! I just have one optional minor suggestion 👍

@spenke91 spenke91 assigned lenaploetzke and unassigned spenke91 Mar 31, 2026
@lenaploetzke lenaploetzke assigned spenke91 and unassigned lenaploetzke Apr 1, 2026
@spenke91 spenke91 enabled auto-merge April 1, 2026 13:38
@spenke91 spenke91 added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 1, 2026
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Apr 1, 2026
@lenaploetzke lenaploetzke added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 1, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit c69d678 Apr 1, 2026
26 checks passed
@lenaploetzke lenaploetzke deleted the mark-fetchcontent-options-as-advanced branch April 1, 2026 15:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Improvement: Mark fetchcontent cmake options as advanced

2 participants