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.
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 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.
Effectively these two checks could only be false if the instance being
tested were null. So we replace the instanceof checks with null
checks. Sometimes that, in turn, makes other surrounding code
simpler. In the case of ApplicationLoaderFilter.test, for example,
a whole conditional case ("o instanceof LocalPointerKey") becomes
statically impossible. That seems a bit strange to me, but that's
what the code was effectively doing.
In the cases addressed here, the caught exception was being "handled"
by throwing some new exception. Instead of discarding the old
exception, pass it to the new exception's constructor to indicate the
original cause of the newly-created exception. This practice, called
"exception chaining", can often be useful in debugging.
This fixes the remaining 34 Eclipse "Resource '...' should be managed
by try-with-resource" warnings that were still left after the previous
commit.
Unlike the fixes in that previous commit, the changes here are *not*
plugging potential resource leaks. However, in many cases that is
simply because the code before the close() call cannot currently throw
exceptions. If exceptions became possible in the future, leaks could
result. Using try-with-resource preemptively avoids that.
Furthermore, in code that was already dealing with exceptions, the
try-with-resource style is usually considerably simpler.
This fixes 33 out of 37 Eclipse "Potential resource leak: '...' may
not be closed" warnings. It also fixes 3 out of 37 Eclipse "Resource
'...' should be managed by try-with-resource" warnings, although that
was not the main focus of this effort.
The remaining 4 warnings about potential resource leaks all involve a
leaked JarFile instance that is passed to a JarFileModule constructor
call. JarFileModile never attempts to close its underlying JarFile;
this code is written as though JarFile cleanup were the caller's
responsibility. However, the JarFile often cannot be closed by the
code that creates the JarFileModule either, since the JarFile needs to
remain open while the JarFileModule is in use, and some of these
JarFileModules stay around beyond the lifetime of the code that
created them. Truly fixing this would essentially require making
JarFileModule implement Closeable, which in turn would probably
require that Module implement Closeable, which in turn would require
changes to lots of code that deals with Module instances to arrange
for them to be properly closed. That's more invasive than I'm
prepared to take on right now.
Instead, rely on Java's ability to infer type parameters in many
contexts. This removes 665 Eclipse warnings.
Note: a few of these changes are to files under "test" subdirectories.
Presumably those are files that serve as test inputs rather than being
part of WALA code proper. As far as I can tell, these changes do not
break any WALA tests. But if any of those tests were specifically
intended to exercise WALA on code with non-inferred generic type
parameters, then I really should be leaving those alone.
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.
Some source files here definitely use Hamcrest, so listing it as a
dependency seems reasonable. What I find confusing is the inconsistency
among my Eclipse installations. On some of my various machines, Eclipse
reports an error if this dependency is not listed. On others, Eclipse
finds the required jar and reports no error, even if this dependency is
not listed. I don't know why the latter works, or why the inconsistency
exists at all. Eclipse is a complex, subtle beast. What I can say is
that this change fixes the error for my Eclipses that were reporting an
error, and does not introduce any new errors for my Eclipses that were
already happy before this change.
We actually know the full grammar for these files: it is documented at
<http://help.eclipse.org/kepler/index.jsp?topic=%2Forg.eclipse.platform.doc.isv%2Freference%2Fmisc%2Fplugin_manifest.html>.
We ought to be able to extract that DTD into a file and give each
"plugin.xml" a "<!DOCTYPE plugin SYSTEM ...>" declaration referencing
it. Unfortunately, that leads to a new warning: "External entity
resolution is not supported by PDE." So a stub declaration is the
best we can do. Fortunately, Eclipse's structured editor seems to
preserve these once we add them by hand.
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.
Ant "build.xml" files don't have a standard DTD or XML Schema; the
contents are simply too flexible for that. But we can at least
give each a stub DOCTYPE declaration. That's enough to satisfy
Eclipse's XML validator, which otherwise complains that these files
lack grammar constraints.
As created by Tycho Surefire, these files are XML documents without
DTD or XML Schema declarations. The XML validator warns about this
omission. However, Surefire is not a WALA component. We are not in a
suitable position to change it to include XML schema or DTD
declarations in the XML files it generates. Better, then, to ignore
this benign problem so we can focus on warnings that we can act on
directly.
Ben Liblit
Manu Sridharan
Julian Dolby
Andrei Dan
Martin Hecker