Investigate Android sound code issues reported by Codacy

[ann0see]

Describe the bug

Codacy complains that the following variable is not used (and I don't see that this is false):

jamulus/android/sound.cpp

Line 150 in a9deb22

QString latencyMode = ( stream->getPerformanceMode() == oboe::PerformanceMode::None ? "None" : "Power Saving" );

Also this warning:

I assume this is a false positive?
To Reproduce

See https://app.codacy.com/gh/ann0see/jamulus/file/68862695471/issues/source?bid=21822857&fileBranchId=21822857

Expected behavior

No Codacy warnings

Screenshots

See above

Operating system

Android

Version of Jamulus

Latest

Additional context

@j-santander @sthenos could you please have a look at these warnings too?

[pgScorpio]

I assume this is a false positive?

No it isn't, but it is not a real issue since it will always be initialized before starting Sound.

(And I'm still hoping to get my sound-redesign implemented, since it will solve a lot of these sound related issues ;=))

[pljones]

If this is simple, we might as well try to resolve it in 3.11.0.

[pljones]

@ann0see I'm happy to pick this one up, unless you're planning to?

[ann0see]

Feel free to do so. It should be a quick fix.

[pljones]

latencyMode appears not to exist:

$ grep latencyMode android/*.* src/*.*
$

iOboeBufferSizeMono appears not to exist:

$ grep iOboeBufferSizeMono android/*.* src/*.*
$

Where on Github do I look to see Codacity output - is this on jamulussoftware/jamulus:main?

[ann0see]

Where on Github do I look to see Codacity output - is this on jamulussoftware/jamulus:main?

No. It's just enabled for my repo for security reasons: https://app.codacy.com/gh/ann0see/jamulus/dashboard

[pljones]

Given anyone can enable Codacity against Jamulus, I don't understand how there is any security benefit in not running the tool on each commit and reporting the findings as part of the build? We use CodeQL in a similar manner - that also reports potential security flaws.

[ann0see]

Codacy is an external proprietary tool while CodeQL is something supported by GitHub. Every plug-in in the official repo is another potential attack vector.

[pljones]

That doesn't answer my point. If anyone can use Codacity to expose flaws in Jamulus, should the Jamulus team not take on responsibility by having the reports delivered to the team as part of each build? Either there's a use for the tool, or there isn't, right?