In general, test code may do all sorts of things that would be
considered poor style in production code. I assume that these
potentially-static methods are declared non-static by design.
These should mostly be things that we've already decided earlier that
we explicitly don't want to "fix" because they simply disagree with
the WALA project's coding style.
The additional diagnostics are ones that were previously being
ignored, but which we seem to have been ignoring by default rather
than as a conscious choice.
For diagnostics of which we currently have *zero* instances, treat
these as errors rather than merely warnings. The intent is to
permanently lock out future regressions of things we've completely
fixed. In the future, whenever we fix the last instance of a given
warning in a given Eclipse project, we should also promote that
diagnostic to an error to keep things clean into the future.
The Eclipse IDE shows no such diagnostics, so it would be nice to
treat them as errors if any appear in the future. However, the batch
Tycho-based build ("mvn clean install -DskipTests") does find and
report numerous such violations. This discrepancy is strange; Manu
and I currently don't know why it's happening. We suspect some
Maven-related weirdness may be creating slightly different
environments in the Eclipse GUI versus the command-line-driven build.
* Fix pom.xml to be like other projects
* Check for existence of nodejs download before re-downloading
* Fix Eclipse config files to be like other projects
This fixes one Eclipse "The JRE container on the classpath is not a
perfect match to the 'JavaSE-1.7' execution environment" warning in
the "Plug-in Development" category.
This fixes five Eclipse "Source folder '...' does not have the output
folder in corresponding output entry 'output..'" warnings in the
"Plug-in Development" category.
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.
This test code is intentionally crafted to use instances to access
static methods. Eclipse's recommendation to access those methods
directly is, therefore, counterproductive.
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.
The method itself accesses only static members. The fact that it is
final means no subclass can ever override this method and use dynamic
dispatch to choose the implementation at run time. So declaring this
method 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.
The "potentially" qualifier is here because these methods are visible
outside the WALA source tree. These methods may seem OK to be static
based on the code we have here, but we have no way of knowing whether
third-party code expected to be able to subclass and override. I'm
going to play it safe and assume that we want to allow that.
Note that we are still allowing Eclipse warnings about methods that
can *definitely* be declared static; a different configuration option
controls these. For private methods, final methods, and methods in
final classes, if the code seems static-safe based on what we have
here, then that's good enough: we don't need to worry about
third-party overrides.
* 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.
This fixes one Eclipse "The JRE container on the classpath is not a
perfect match to the 'JavaSE-1.7' execution environment" warning in
the "Plug-in Development" category.
This fixes five Eclipse "Source folder '...' does not have the output
folder in corresponding output entry 'output..'" warnings in the
"Plug-in Development" category.
In certain cases, one may want to ignore inter-procedural control
dependence. Consider the following example:
flag = getFlagVal();
if (flag) {
doStuff();
}
If we are ignoring interprocedural control dependence, a forward slice
from the first statement will *not* include statements inside doStuff()
and its transitive callees.
This option is useful in scenarios where the effects of statements
inside control-dependent callees can be accounted for via some cheaper
effect analysis. E.g., if you only care about heap effects of control-
dependent callees, you can compute that using mod-ref analysis,
rather than sucking all the control-dependent callee statements into the
slice.
Also added some more detailed comments, a new unit test, and removed
some trailing whitespace.
Julian Dolby
Ben Liblit
Manu Sridharan
Caius Brindescu
Manu Sridharan