CfgFunctions is not parsed properly

[3FCO]

Problem: When SQFLint is indexing the workspace, all my functions show up as Possibly undefined variable.

I have everything setup, as in ArmA 3 Functions

GOES ON FOR THE WHOLE FUNCTIONS.HPP

Am I missing something? Tried switching to older verison, but didn't help either.

Kind regards

[mr-guard]

I guess the relative path isnt detected properly.
Can you share the folder structure?

[3FCO]

Yeah sure. Sorry for late repsonse

[SkaceKamen]

I think the tag is not properly parsed. Could you try if ArmaProjektet_fn... exists?

Update: Putting the tag into the Admin class should fix it for now.

[3FCO]

Tried one: ArmaProjektet_fn_initEVH and it's the same problem.

Don't know if I have done something wrong on my part, or just some wrong settings. Sorry for the hassle, but appreciate the quick response

[mr-guard]

Sorry for the auto close.

@SkaceKamen Something that came to my mind after approval:
tag = tagClass.body.variables.tag || tagClass.name;
Is this actually a safe access?

[SkaceKamen]

Don't know if I have done something wrong on my part, or just some wrong settings. Sorry for the hassle, but appreciate the quick response

@3FCO There seems to also be an issue somewhere else than tag. Keep the tagin the Init class, for now. Support for tag in the ArmaProjekt class will be coming in the next version. Are you using marcos or something advanced in your description.ext? Are there any errors when you open description.ext?

@SkaceKamen Something that came to my mind after approval:
tag = tagClass.body.variables.tag || tagClass.name;
Is this actually a safe access?

It should be, the variables should be always defined. Feel free to test it tho, I'm not currently on my dev machine

[3FCO]

@SkaceKamen I removed some simple macros from my cfgRemoteExec, but that didn't seem to help. But if i deleted both the macros AND put the TAG in all my function classes, like you suggested, it works fine.
But it didn't work by only removing the errors from my cfgRemoteExec.

[SkaceKamen]

Yea, the issue is probably with the macros, the current parser supports them only partially and behaves unexpectedly when some more complicated macros come into play. The preprocessor needs to be updated to properly parse and expand macros, but that isn't an easy task, unfortunately :(