# V1051\. It is possible that an assigned variable should be checked in the next condition\. Consider checking for typos\.

The analyzer has detected a situation where a variable is initialized or assigned a new value and is expected to be checked in the condition of a subsequent 'if' statement but another variable is checked instead\.

This error is demonstrated by the following example:

```cpp
int ret = syscall(....);
if (ret != -1) { .... }
....
int ret2 = syscall(....);
if (ret != -1) { .... }    // <=
```

Programmers often need to check the value returned by a function but use a wrong variable name in the condition of the 'if' statement\. This mistake is typically made when you clone a code fragment but forget to modify the name of the variable in the condition\. In the example above, the programmer forgot to change the name 'ret' to 'ret2'\.

Fixed version:

```cpp
int ret2 = syscall(....);
if (ret2 != -1) { .... }
```

The following example also demonstrates this mistake:

```cpp
obj->field = ....;
if (field) ....;
```

Both the variable and the class member have the same name, which makes it easy to confuse one with the other\.

This diagnostic is heuristic; it splits the names of variables into individual strings and compares the respective parts to conclude if there is a typo\. It also performs a basic type check, aiming at reducing the number of false positives\.

The diagnostic may often be triggered by code like this:

```cpp
var->m_abc = ....;
var->m_cba = ....;
if (var->m_abc)      // <=
{
  ....
}
```

Fragments like this are usually correct\. You can either suppress such warnings or swap the assignments so that the variable to be checked is assigned a value immediately before the 'if' statement:

```cpp
var->m_cba = ....;
var->m_abc = ....;
if (var->m_abc)
{
  ....
}
```

Keeping the assignment and the check close to each other also makes the code more readable\.