PERL WARNING - sub ConvLaCrosse robust

[HomeAutoUser]

• Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
• [x] Tests for the changes have been added / modified (needed for for bug fixes / features)
• [ ] commandref has been added / updated (needed for bug fixes / features)

• What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)

• [ ] Bugfix (please link issue)

• [ ] Feature enhancement

• [ ] Documentation update

• [ ] Unittest enhancement

• [x] other

• What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here, if this describes the current behavior)

  • sub ConvLaCrosse creates PERL WARNING because it is not robust 2021-11-23T22:45:19.0077148Z ##[error]Illegal hexadecimal digit 'P' ignored at FHEM/lib/SD_Protocols.pm line 1973. --> cause, test submit not valid hex value https://github.com/RFD-FHEM/RFFHEM/blob/d01e9cd12ac8cc80c3de6f7912c9fb7061db79ff/t/SD_Protocols/02_ConvLaCrosse.t#L65-L71 --> sub in SD_Protocols.pm does not check for HEX validity https://github.com/RFD-FHEM/RFFHEM/blob/d01e9cd12ac8cc80c3de6f7912c9fb7061db79ff/FHEM/lib/SD_Protocols.pm#L1964-L1974

• What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?

  • sub ConvLaCrosse is robust
  • this PERL WARNING no longer exists

• Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)

• Other information:

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #1038 (e3a8cca) into master (6959426) will increase coverage by 0.10%. The diff coverage is 80.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1038      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   60.68%   60.78%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         117      117              
  Lines        9004     8984      -20     
  Branches     1411     1409       -2     
==========================================
- Hits         5464     5461       -3     
+ Misses       2533     2518      -15     
+ Partials     1007     1005       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
fhem	51.54% <50.00%> (+0.10%)	:arrow_up:
modules	60.78% <80.00%> (+0.10%)	:arrow_up:
perl	91.61% <80.00%> (-0.05%)	:arrow_down:
unittests	60.78% <80.00%> (+0.10%)	:arrow_up:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
FHEM/lib/SD_Protocols.pm	79.17% <50.00%> (-0.10%)	:arrow_down:
t/SD_Protocols/02_ConvLaCrosse.t	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
t/FHEM/14_SD_BELL/09_parseDatat.t
t/FHEM/14_SD_AS/00_load.t	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
FHEM/00_SIGNALduino.pm	63.81% <0.00%> (+0.64%)	:arrow_up:

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 6959426...e3a8cca. Read the comment docs.

[elektron-bbs]

Wollen wir denn jetzt wirklich alles doppelt und dreifach prüfen? Diese Prüfung ist doch schon in der 00_SIGNALduino.pm sub SIGNALduino_Parse_MN enthalten:

  if ($rmsg !~ /^MN;D=[0-9A-F]+;(?:R=[0-9]+;)?$/){
    $hash->{logMethod}->($hash->{NAME}, 3, qq[$hash->{NAME}: Parse_MN, faulty msg: $rmsg]);
    return ; # Abort here if not successfull
  }

[HomeAutoUser]

Es geht mir in diesem PR nicht ums doppelt prüfen, es geht mir um die Robustheit der Sub als einzelnes. Der Gedanke war mal, das man Subs, einzeln nutzen kann um ggf Code zu sparen. Ja es kommt sehr selten vor. (fast unwarscheinlich in Devicespezifischen)

Nur wenn man jede Sub separat absichert, so kann man diverse PERL WARNINGs vermeiden. Es macht in meinen Augen keinen Sinn, Subs aufzurufen und zu testen indem man künstlich Warnings generiert. Entweder richtig oder die Liste und Logs werden länger und länger mit WARNINGs.

[HomeAutoUser]

@sidey79 bittefein :-)