Boxing a primitive using the constructor ("new Integer(4)") always
creates a distinct new boxed instance. That's rarely what you need,
and in fact all of those constructors have been deprecated in Java 9.
Using the static "valueOf" method instead ("Integer.valueOf(4)") can
give better performance by reusing existing instances. You no longer
get a unique boxed object, but generally that's OK.
Eclipse's automated code clean-up tool did most of the heavy lifting
here: it specifically has a clean-up option for converting functional
interfaces to lambdas. I merely had to revert the automated changes
for a single enumeration class for which it produced invalid results,
and for a few test inputs that apparently aren't set up to be compiled
with Java 8.
These two modules refer to "AST.JLS8". If you have Java 9 installed,
then "AST.JLS8" is marked as deprecated, and we can a warning unless
we suppress or disable the deprecation warning wherever "AST.JLS8" is
used. However, if you don't have Java 9 installed, then "AST.JLS8" is
not deprecated, and trying to suppress deprecation warnings where
"AST.JLS8" is used instead produces warnings about unnecessary warning
suppression. Aagh! Turning off the deprecation warnings entirely for
these two modules seems like the only sane compromise.
Near as I can tell, the requests for deprecated versions here are
intentional. The non-deprecated version (AST.JLS9) is the latest and
greatest, but as far as I can tell we really do want the older version
here.
This is similar to 6caecce3e7, though in
that case JLS8 was the non-reprecated latest version and we were still
asking for JLS3.
In general, my approach was to try to eliminate each unused parameter
using Eclipse's "Change Method Signature" refactoring. That did not
always succeed: a parameter may be unused in some base class method,
but then be used in subclass's override of that method. In cases
where refactoring to eliminate a parameter failed, I instead annotated
the parameter with '@SuppressWarnings("unused")' to silence the
warning.
Note: this group of changes creates a significant risk of
incompatibility for third-party WALA code. Some removed parameters
change externally-visible APIs. Furthermore, these changes do not
necessarily lead to Java compilation errors. For example, suppose
third-party code subclasses a WALA class or interface, overrides a
method, but does not annotate that method as @Override. Removing a
parameter means that the third-party method no longer overrides. This
can quietly change code behavior without compile-time errors or
warnings. This is exactly why one should use @Override wherever
possible, but we cannot guarantee that third-party WALA users have
done that.
Unnecessary "throws" declarations tend to cascade. If foo() calls
bar() and bar() falsely declares that it might throw IOException, that
often leads a programmer to declare that foo() might throw IOException
as well. Fixing the bar() throws declaration then reveals that we can
fix the foo() throws declaration too. By the time we reach a fixed
point with cleaning these up, we have removed roughly 320 unnecessary
throws declarations.
In a few cases, this cleanup even lets us remove entire "try
... catch" statements where the only thing being caught was an
exception that we now statically know cannot be thrown. Nice!
In Eclipse project configurations, upgrade any future such shenanigans
from warnings to errors. Now that we've fixed this, we don't want it
coming back again.
There is a potential drawback to this change. Conceivably some public
WALA API entry point might have declared that it could throw some
exception merely to reserve the *option* of throwing that exception in
third-party code that subclasses and overrides the API entry point in
question. I have no idea whether this is a significant concern in
practice, though.
Generally, overriding one means you should be overriding the other
too.
Also, configure Eclipse to treat any similar cases as errors, rather
than merely warnings.
If a method is private, there's no risk that a subclass elsewhere
might be overriding it and depending on dynamic dispatch to choose the
right implementation. So all of these private methods can safely be
declared static without risk of regression in either WALA code or
unseen third-party code.
* Fixed bug for source analysis
Do while in case statement would throw an NPE. Now it doesn't
* Added test case
The test will fail with an NPE if the fix is not applied.
* Fix warnings about unset javacProjectSettings build entries
Specifically, these are all warnings of the form "The
'javacProjectSettings' build entry should be set when there are project
specific compiler settings".
* Add @Override annotations to all methods that do override
This fixes 287 Eclipse code style warnings.
* Cannot add @Override annotations here, so suppress warnings instead
We should be able to add these @Override annotations in the future,
one Eclipse Mars and earlier are no longer supported. For now,
though, they have to go away in order to be compatible with older
Eclipse releases.
Along with these fixes, convert several for loops that used explicit
iterators into newer-style for-each loops that hide the iterators and
casts inside the syntactic sugar. Nice!
However, I have not systematically tried to modernize *all* for loops
that could instead be for-each loops. Someone could certainly do that
at some point. In this commit, I only converted loops that I had to
touch anyway because they were using raw "Iterator" types.
Removing an unused field sometimes means removing constructor code
that used to initialize that field. Removing that initialization code
sometimes leaves whole constructor arguments unused. Removing those
unused arguments can leave us with unused code to compute those
arguments in constructors' callers, and so on. This commit tries to
clean all of this up, working backward from the unused fields that an
earlier commit already removed. Hopefully I have avoided removing
upstream code that had other important side effects, but it wouldn't
hurt for a WALA expert to review this change carefully.
Specifically, these warnings are always of the form "Statement
unnecessarily nested within else clause. The corresponding then clause
does not complete normally". I can see this being a matter of
personal taste, actually. If the WALA maintainers decide that they
prefer to keep this code as it was before, that's OK with me: I'll
replace this group of code changes with a group of settings changes
that tell Eclipse to quietly ignore this "problem".
Julian Dolby
Ben Liblit
Caius Brindescu
Manu Sridharan