* 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".
* Turn off Eclipse warnings about undocumented empty blocks
The presence of 65 such warnings in two packages suggests that the de
facto WALA coding style does not mandate documenting empty blocks.
Better to avoid printing warnings that will be routinely ignored, so
that other important warnings are more likely to be noticed.
* Turn off Eclipse warnings about synthetic accessor methods
Synthetic accessor methods allow access to otherwise inaccessible
members of enclosing types. The presence of 246 such warnings in
three packages suggests that the de facto WALA coding style does not
consider synthetic accessor methods to be problematic. Better to
avoid printing warnings that will be routinely ignored, so that other
important warnings are more likely to be noticed.
Specifically, we're turning off Eclipse warnings about missing version
constraints on required bundles ("Require-Bundle"), exported
packages ("Export-Package"), and imported packages ("Import-Package").
We're not turning these off absolutely everywhere, though: only in
packages where one or more such warnings were actually being reported.
So if a given package was already providing all version constraints
for, say, package imports, then we've kept that warning on in that
package.
Honestly I don't entirely understand the practical implications of
these warnings. However, there were 355 of them across many WALA
subprojects. I take this as evidence that the WALA developers do not
consider these version constraints to be important. Therefore, we may
as well stop warning about something we have no intention of fixing.
That being said, if we *do* want to fix some or all of these, I
welcome any advice on what those fixes should look like. I am rather
ignorant about all things OSGi.
If the true block of an `if` statement is guaranteed to exit early,
such as by a `return` or `throw`, then any code appearing in a
corresponding `else` clause could just as well have appeared after the
`if` statement entirely. Eclipse can warn about this.
However, Manu prefers to let such code stay in the `else` clauses.
OK, sure: this is more a matter of personal taste than something truly
problematic. Per Manu's request, then, we're turning off that Eclipse
warning in the subprojects in which it currently arises.
Manu requested that we use this approach instead of adding
`@SuppressWarnings("unused")` at each affected catch block. That
seems reasonable to me, given the large number of such warnings and
the lack of likely harm from ignoring such caught exceptions.
These changes turn off Eclipse warnings for Javadoc comments with
missing tags, such as "@throw" or "@param".
We don't turn this warning off in all projects. Rather, we turn it
off only in projects that were producing at least one such warning.
In other words, if a project was already completely "clean" with
respect to this warning, then we leave this warning enabled for that
project.
Turning off these warnings is a partial declaration of Javadoc
bankruptcy. In an ideal world, we would enable and fix all of these
warnings. However, there are 327 of them. Apparently the WALA team's
implicit coding style says that omitting Javadoc tags is OK. If
there's no intent to systematically add these tags, then we may as
well turn off these warnings so that we can see other warnings that we
may want to fix.
These changes turn off Eclipse warnings for documentable items without
Javadoc comments. In some subprojects, we turn these off entirely.
In others, we leave these warnings on for public items but not for
items whose visibility is protected or below.
We don't turn this warning off in all projects. Rather, we turn it
off only in projects that were producing at least one such warning.
In other words, if a project was already completely "clean" with
respect to this warning, then we leave this warning enabled for that
project.
Turning off these warnings is a partial declaration of Javadoc
bankruptcy. In an ideal world, we would enable and fix all of these
warnings. However, there are 1,366 of them. Apparently the WALA
team's implicit coding style says that omitting Javadoc comments is
OK. If there's no intent to systematically add documentation, then we
may as well turn off these warnings so that we can see other warnings
that we may want to fix.
These arise, for example, when Javadoc documentation on a public class
includes a @link to a private field. I can see how this would be
problematic for closed-source Java code where private items are
invisible to outsiders. However, given that WALA is open source,
nothing is truly non-visible. If the WALA documentation authors
considered non-visible references useful when explaining things,
that's fine with me.
We don't turn this warning off in all projects. Rather, we turn it
off only in projects that were producing at least one such warning.
In other words, if a project was already completely "clean" with
respect to this warning, then we leave this warning enabled for that
project.
These changes turn off Eclipse warnings for Javadoc tags without
descriptions. In some subprojects, we turn these off entirely. In
others, leave on missing-descrption checks for "@return" tags only.
We don't turn this warning off in all projects. Rather, we turn it
off only in projects that were producing at least one such warning.
In other words, if a project was already completely "clean" with
respect to this warning, then we leave this warning enabled for that
project.
Turning off these warnings is a partial declaration of Javadoc
bankruptcy. In an ideal world, we would enable and fix all of these
warnings. However, there are 576 of them. Apparently the WALA team's
implicit coding style says that omitting descriptions is OK. If
there's no intent to systematically add descriptions, then we may as
well turn off these warnings so that we can see other warnings that we
may want to fix.
Previously, the various Eclipse projects' Java configurations used
mixtures of 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8. Many were internally inconsistent,
such as requiring 1.7 in "MANIFEST.MF" but 1.6 in the Eclipse JDT
build preferences. The Travis-CI configuration tests against both 1.7
and 1.8, but does not test against 1.6.
Across all projects, the most common version was 1.7. So I'm going to
assume that 1.7 is the intended build target. This commit makes 1.7
the selected version nearly everywhere.
"com.ibm.wala.core.testdata" is the one exception. This specific
project uses a few features only found in 1.8, such as lambda
expressions. Previously, "com.ibm.wala.core.testdata" used 1.7 in
some aspects of its configuration but 1.8 in others. Now it
consistently targets 1.8. I wish this one project didn't need to be
inconsistent with the rest of WALA, but at least now it's consistent
with itself.
(Personally, I'd be happy to target 1.8 only. But my impression
across all of these configuration files is that the WALA developers
still want to be compatible with 1.7. If that is no longer a
requirement, let me know and I will adjust these changes accordingly
to target 1.8 only.)
This change eliminates 11 "There is no 'jre.compilation.profile' build
entry and the project has Java compliance preferences set" warnings
and 13 "The JRE container on the classpath is not a perfect match to
the 'JavaSE-1.7' execution environment" warnings. However, it also
adds 450 "Redundant specification of type arguments <...>" warnings
and 17 "Resource '...' should be managed by try-with-resource"
warnings. So this seems like a net step backward in my wish to reduce
WALA warnings. However, those new warnings concern Java 1.7 language
features that we were not previously using to good effect in projects
that targeted 1.6. If we all agree that we can now target 1.7
instead, then we can use these helpful features as the newly-added
warnings suggest. So I call that a step in the right direction.
When Maven generates these "*/target/antrun/build-main.xml" Any build
scripts, it does not include any DTD or XML Schema declarations.
Eclipse's XML validator warns about the lack of grammar constraints.
The warning is sensible, but we are not in a position to do anything
about it. Better, therefore, to suppress these warnings so that we
can more-clearly see warnings we *can* address.
I think the "target/p2artifacts.xml" and "target/p2content.xml" files
are generated by Maven. They are well-formed XML but Eclipse's XML
validator legitimately warns that they lack grammar constraints.
Since we're not maintaining the tool that creates these files, we are
not in a position to do anything about that. Therefore, we may as
well exclude these from validation entirely. That way we can
more-clearly recognize warnings that we *can* do something about.
Eclipse validation warns about invalid HTML content in all
Maven-generated "target/site/dependency-convergence.html" files. The
warnings are legitimate: these HTML files are indeed invalid.
However, we don't maintain the tool that generates these files, so we
are not in a position to fix them. Better, therefore, to suppress
these warnings so that we can notice and fix other problems over which
we do have control.
This resolves one Eclipse "'...' build entry is missing" warning.
Also update the project configuration to treat this warning as an
error. This should discourage commits that create new instances of
this sort of problem in the future.
This resolves one "'...' is not a source folder" Eclipse warning.
Also update the project configuration to treat this warning as an
error. This should discourage commits that create new instances of
this sort of problem in the future.
In general, the WALA code base is not really ready for nullness
checking. It would be nice if we got there some day, but I'm not
planning to take that on now or any time soon. Until then, it's not
useful to warn about missing @NonNullByDefault declarations on WALA
packages.
See also older commit 7b6811b.
Eclipse Mars Service Release 2 finds 45 potential null pointer accesses
across WALA's various Eclipse projects. Eclipse ignores these by
default, but any individual user may have changed their personal Eclipse
configuration to treat them as warnings or errors. Thus, some people
will find that the code builds while others find that it fails. Better
to explicitly use a known-good configuration.
In the long run someone should inspect these cases one-by-one and fix
them where appropriate. But that is probably better managed as part of a
larger effort to tidy up nulls in WALA. I'm not planning to take that on
now or any time soon, though, so this is a better setup for now.
Ben Liblit
Manu Sridharan
Juergen Graf
Martin Mohr