* 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
Casting to `Foo<Bar>` results in an unchecked-cast warning due to Java
generics type erasure. However, sometimes we don't really need a
`Foo<Bar>`, but could simply use any `Foo<?>`. Casting to the latter
creates no warning.
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.
Most of the invalid HTML arose from bare "<" and ">" characters.
These should be escaped as "<" and ">" when not intended to
introduce HTML tags. When you have many such characters close
together, "{@literal ...}" is a nice, readable alternative that
automatically escapes its contents. If the text in question is
intended to be a code fragment, then "{@code ...}" is appropriate:
this is essentially equivalent to "<code>{@literal ...}</code>".
There were a few other HTML violations too, but none common enough to
be worth detailing here.
Erik Derr
Ben Liblit
Julian Dolby
Manu Sridharan
msridhar1
dolby-oss
sjfink