Convert raw pointers to smart pointers

[sbaldu]

All the raw pointers used in the library have been converted to smart pointers (issue #234 ).

[ghost]

👇 Click on the image for a new way to code review

Legend

[github-advanced-security]

Cppcheck (reported by Codacy) found more than 10 potential problems in the proposed changes. Check the Files changed tab for more details.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #316 (b6a73fc) into master (5fc8449) will decrease coverage by 0.45%.
The diff coverage is 97.93%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #316      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.59%   97.15%   -0.45%     
==========================================
  Files          53       54       +1     
  Lines        7487     7587     +100     
==========================================
+ Hits         7307     7371      +64     
- Misses        180      216      +36     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.15% <97.93%> (-0.45%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
include/Partitioning/CoordinatedPartitionState.hpp	75.63% <0.00%> (ø)
include/Partitioning/Partition.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
include/Utility/Typedef.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
test/DirectedEdgeTest.cpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
test/DirectedWeightedEdgeTest.cpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
test/UndirectedEdgeTest.cpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
test/UndirectedWeightedEdgeTest.cpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
test/main.cpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
include/Partitioning/WeightBalancedLibra.hpp	74.35% <66.66%> (-3.57%)	⬇️
include/Graph/Graph.hpp	94.88% <93.41%> (-1.77%)	⬇️
... and 40 more

[ZigRazor]

I'm scared about memory leak with shared_ptr stack overflow reference.
Can you do some check reporting the results?

I know that can be a heavy work, but I think is necessary to ensure a good quality with this rework.

Maybe can be usefull to add example, and test memory ( with valgrind ) with these example.

[sbaldu]

I'm scared about memory leak with shared_ptr stack overflow reference. Can you do some check reporting the results?

I know that can be a heavy work, but I think is necessary to ensure a good quality with this rework.

Maybe can be usefull to add example, and test memory ( with valgrind ) with these example.

I have removed all the calls to new in the test files and now if I run test_exe inside valgrind it doesn't show any leaks.
Is this enough or do we want do to some more thorough checks?
I could do like in the stack overflow example, insert some print-outs in the destructors and make sure that they are all called correctly.

[ZigRazor]

Better do more checks.
Your suggested solution is ok.

Thanks in advance

[sbaldu]

Better do more checks. Your suggested solution is ok.

Thanks in advance

I've run all the tests singularly with valgrind and I didn't find any leaks. Also with the fsanitize=leak flag they compiled and run fine.
As I mentioned I also put print-outs in the destructors, and the memory allocated for the edges and the nodes seemed to be freed correctly.

I think that it looks safe. Are there any more tests that you think we should do to make sure?

[ZigRazor]

Ok, it's fine!