Fixes inconsistent behavior of the exclusions argument.
Depending on the androidLib argument, setting exclusions to null
is either fine or raises and exception.
This patch makes exclusions truely optional for any case
when null is passed.
* Impl of IMethod isSynthetic and isWalaSynthetic
So far IMethod.isSynthetic referred to WALA-generated helper functions
and there was no equivalent to check whether an IMethod is synthetic in
terms of compiler-generated.
To make naming consistent this patch first renames the isSynthetic to
isWalaSynthetic to clearly indicate that a given IMethod was generated
by WALA. Then, we re-introduce isSynthetic that from now on checks
whether an IMethod is synthetic/compiler-generated (referring to the
synthetic flag in bytecode)
* Implementation of IClass.isSynthetic
Complementary to IMethod.isSynthetic, this method checks whether
an IClass is compiler-generated.
* updated JavaDoc
* Fixes IllegalStateException
Reverts refactored code with try-with-resource back to potentially
leaking implementation. The refactored code threw an exception since
JarFileModule does not implement the AutoClosable interface. Further,
removed the printStackTrace() call, as this is not an exceptional case
but intended control-flow in case DexFileModule creation fails.
* Downgrade JarFile leak diagnostic from warning to error
This is consistent with how we are treating potential JarFile leaks in
other WALA components. WALA issue #236 already notes that these
should be cleaned up eventually, although doing so will not be easy.
If multiple tests both write to "/tmp/cg.txt" (for example), then
these tests cannot safely run concurrently. That never used to be a
problem with Maven, since our Maven tests were all strictly sequential
anyway. But parallelized testing using Gradle requires that we do
better. Fortunately, Java has perfectly reasonable APIs for
generating uniquely-named temporary files and directories.
If multiple tests both write to "/tmp/cg.txt" (for example), then
these tests cannot safely run concurrently. That never used to be a
problem with Maven, since our Maven tests were all strictly sequential
anyway. But parallelized testing using Gradle requires that we do
better. Fortunately, Java has perfectly reasonable APIs for
generating uniquely-named temporary files and directories.
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.
In modern Java, we would not need to do this. Java 1.8 can infer the
generic type, which would allow us to write simply
"Collections.emptySet()" instead of
"Collections.<TypeReference>"emptySet()". Unfortunately, Android is
behind the times, so this specific project targets Java 1.5. That
older Java definition does not do the inference we would want here, so
we have to be explicit instead.
The former returns Set<T> for any T, whereas the latter merely returns
a raw Set. Using the former instead of the latter fixes four Eclipse
warnings about using raw generics.
Previously each of these `switch` statements would implicitly do
nothing if an unanticipated `enum` value came along. My impression is
that each of these `switch` statements is supposed to be exhaustive,
such that an unexpected (unhandled) value should never appear. If one
does, we should recognize it and complain loudly.
Of course, sometimes the right behavior for previously-unhandled
values is to do nothing. It may not always be clear whether an
exception or doing nothing is the right choice. For this commit,
WALA's regression tests still pass even with the possibility of
throwing an exception for unexpected values. If we assume that the
test suite is thorough, that tells me that throwing an exception is
the right policy for each `switch` statement that I'm changing here.
Eclipse was warning that these `switch` statements had no `default`
cases. Each did have some default behavior, but implemented outside
the `switch`. By moving the default behavior into a `default` case
within the `switch`, we eliminate a static warning with no change
whatsoever to the run-time behavior.
Most of these are harmless, and are best fixed simply by removing the
redundant check or assignment. The one in FlowType.compareBlocks,
however, revealed a real problem. This code checks for nullness of
`a` *after* having called a method on `a`. Assuming that `a` can
indeed be `null` here, the check must come first to avoid a
`NullPointerException`.
In several places, I saw code of this form:
if (thing == null)
assert thing != null : ... ;
I honestly don't understand the purpose of that `if` statement. Why
not just have the `assert` statement there directly? I removed the
seemingly irrelevant `if` statements in these cases, but if this is
some intentional pattern, please explain it to me.
In a few places where nullness is statically known but non-obvious,
add assert statements to point out what's going on to help future
developers.
Upgrade future such warnings to errors to keep us moving in a cleaner
direction.
We already have plenty of examples of Serializable classes with this
field, and the vast majority of those fields have generated IDs rather
than "1L". From this I infer that using proper serialVersionUID
fields is considered appropriate WALA coding style.
Previously some of these were accessing such fields through a subclass
of the declaring class. That creates an unnecessary extra inter-class
dependency lower in the type hierarchy than necessary.
Also, suppress this warning in an automated test input where the
indirect static accesses are explicitly intentional.
These methods access only static members. They are methods of a final
class, which means no subclass can ever override these methods and use
dynamic dispatch to choose the implementation at run time. So
declaring these methods static is (statically) safe.
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.
In all of these cases, the code used to initialize the unused local
seems nontrivial to me. I think this can all be removed without
erasing any needed side effects, but the code might still become
useful to someone in the future. So I'm not really removing the code
entirely, but merely commenting it out.
This fixes 49 Eclipse code style warnings. I'm not sure why these
were overlooked in my previous sweep of missing-@Override warnings.
Ah well; got 'em this time around.
Achim D. Brucker
Julian Dolby
Erik Derr
Sifis Lagouvardos
Ben Liblit