Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FEATURE] Perform Data Analytics on Output Generated JSON #8 #10

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

shubhamk-intel
Copy link

Analysing JSON data from 2 different ROM images in the form of Pie chart and bar graph view of various parameters.

This implementation allows us to see comparative analysis of 2 binary files. With the help of pie chart and bar graphs, we can analyze various components of section types and file types.

Implementation for #8

Analysing JSON data from 2 different ROM images in the form of Pie chart and bar graph view of various parameters.

This implementation allows us to see comparative analysis of 2 binary files. With the help of pie chart and bar graphs, we can analyze various components of section types and file types.

Implementation for intel#8

Signed-off-by: Kumar, Shubham <shubham.k@intel.com>
@shubhamk-intel shubhamk-intel requested a review from gahan9 as a code owner April 27, 2023 08:06
exit()

# Opening 1st JSON file
first_file = open(sys.argv[1])

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

File is not always closed

File may not be closed if an exception is raised.
# Opening 1st JSON file
first_file = open(sys.argv[1])
# Opening 2nd JSON file
second_file = open(sys.argv[2])

Check warning

Code scanning / CodeQL

File is not always closed

File may not be closed if an exception is raised.
count_filetype_fv.append(list_file_type[0].count(search_key_filetype_fv))

if count_filetype_driver[0] > 0:
print(f'{count_filetype_driver[0]} occurences of {search_key_filetype_driver} in {sys.argv[1]}')
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's better to use argument parser module instead of manually parsing arguments.

Also if given more preference to Function API... it'll be more scalable solution

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.

2 participants