Increment for One Indexed reporting of warnings in DFA CLI output

[jvsqzj]

VP Developers have pointed out reported warnings are displayed with a line number which is off by one.

Adding one in this line seems like a quick fix for this, but I'd like to know if there are suggestions of another fix for this.
DFA was originally used for testing, but its now part of the integration into VP development PR checks for DML code, so I think its important for the messages to align with expectations from developers and avoid any confusion when trying to apply corrections for these diagnostics.

[JonatanWaern]

Im not too adverse to adding a fix letting the dfa client output 1-indexed line numbers, however this is not the right place to do it as you are changing the DFA's internal representation to 1-indexed. My suggestion is to add a command-line option to the DFA that makes it add one when printing out the numbers in 'output_errors'.

[anankos-intel]

Im not too adverse to adding a fix letting the dfa client output 1-indexed line numbers, however this is not the right place to do it as you are changing the DFA's internal representation to 1-indexed. My suggestion is to add a command-line option to the DFA that makes it add one when printing out the numbers in 'output_errors'.

that means that we will need to change the tool invocation?

[jvsqzj]

Im not too adverse to adding a fix letting the dfa client output 1-indexed line numbers, however this is not the right place to do it as you are changing the DFA's internal representation to 1-indexed. My suggestion is to add a command-line option to the DFA that makes it add one when printing out the numbers in 'output_errors'.

that means that we will need to change the tool invocation?

I think the best way forward to avoid making this change to the dfa wrapper on your end, is to apply what Jonatan suggests here, but with the opposite logic. That means, the default behavior is 1 indexed, and there is an option to use the Zero index format. I think this makes sense as file lines are not usually displayed as zero indexed in text editors.

[anankos-intel]

that would be great if we do not need to change anything in how we call the tool

[JonatanWaern]

Im not too adverse to adding a fix letting the dfa client output 1-indexed line numbers, however this is not the right place to do it as you are changing the DFA's internal representation to 1-indexed. My suggestion is to add a command-line option to the DFA that makes it add one when printing out the numbers in 'output_errors'.

that means that we will need to change the tool invocation?

I think the best way forward to avoid making this change to the dfa wrapper on your end, is to apply what Jonatan suggests here, but with the opposite logic. That means, the default behavior is 1 indexed, and there is an option to use the Zero index format. I think this makes sense as file lines are not usually displayed as zero indexed in text editors.

Yes this is also fine.