Reccaster exclusion pattern for record filtering

[madelinespark]

No description provided.

[madelinespark]

squashed all commits

[tynanford]

@madelinespark and I looked through and cleaned up things a bit in addReccasterExcludePattern

• removed a few nested if/else blocks in favor of continue
• removed the ret variable and extra logging message that just said there was an error in addReccasterExcludePattern
• changed strcmp to argv[i][0] == '\0'

we were wondering if ellFree is cleaning all the memory or not. Madeline will check on that

[tynanford]

Looks good to me and tested with base R3.15.8 and R7.0.9. ELLLIST is very handy!

[tynanford]

Hi @simon-ess , sorry for another ping but there have been enough changes since your last approval that we would appreciate one final look through

[simon-ess]

LGTM!

[simon-ess]

Note that you're failing a sonarqube check for duplicated code on the test function. It might be good to refactor that code, but you also could consider disabling the check on test code?

[tynanford]

I'd be in favor of removing that check on the test file.

@mdavidsaver comments on #117 (comment) would apply to this PR as well. The PRs go in tandem and I had Madeline create the addReccasterEnvVars refactor PR on Friday since that was the last day of her internship. It branches off this PR since there is shared code like nodeFree and string_list_t

My proposal would be to merge this PR as is if it is acceptable and then refactor the loop iteration code and memory allocations for both addReccasterEnvVars and addReccasterExcludePattern in PR #117 . That way the git merging is less troublesome. But let us know if this PR should be cleaned up first.

edit - actually maybe it makes more sense to get this PR fully completed and then worry about pr #117

[simon-ess]

Yeah, I saw that that other PR was based off of this one and sort of assumed that it would be rebased after this one is merge.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
1 Security Hotspot
24.6% Duplication on New Code (required ≤ 3%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[tynanford]

The changes Michael mentioned about array allocation and looping through the linked lists are implemented. Also updated the variable naming as suggested. This is ready to merge from our end, can you take one last look @simon-ess ?