These are all things one might consider fixing in real application
data. Java code used as test inputs, though, serves a different
purpose. Weird code is generally acceptable or even intentional.
Previously we had 227 such warnings. That large number suggests that
the WALA developers consider this to be an acceptable coding style.
If that's so, then it's better to hide these warnings rather than keep
them around as a perpetual distraction.
Previously we had 242 such warnings. That large number suggests that
the WALA developers consider this to be an acceptable coding style.
If that's so, then it's better to hide these warnings rather than keep
them around as a perpetual distraction.
I have *not* upgraded this problem to be treated as an error in the
future. Unfortunately Eclipse uses a single configuration setting for
both unnecessary semicolons and also for empty control-flow statements
like `while (p) ;`. I'm not convinced that it's worth rewriting all
instances of the latter into `while (p) { }`. So this is just going
to stay as a warning for now.
The fix is to add "static" where appropriate, of course. I've also
simplified calls to such methods to reflect the fact that they no
longer need a specific object to call the method on.
In projects that contain test inputs, I've left the non-static
declarations unchanged, and instead downgraded the warning to be
ignored. In all other projects, this warning has been upgraded to an
error.
Along the way, I also converted many "for (;;)" loops into modern
"for (:)" loops. I didn't systematically look for all opportunities
to do this, though. I merely made this change where I was already
converting raw Iterator uses into modern Iterator<...> uses.
Better use of generics also allowed many casts to become statically
redundant. I have removed all such redundant casts.
Only three raw-types warnings remain after this batch of fixes. All
three involve raw uses of CallGraphBuilder. I've tried to fix these
too, but it quickly snowballs into a cascade of changes that may or
may not eventually reach a statically-type-save fixed point. I may
give these last few problem areas another go in the future. For now,
though, the hundreds of other fixes seem worth keeping even if there
are a few stragglers.
This commit may change some public APIs, but only by making weaker
type signatures stronger by replacing raw types with generic types.
For example, we may change something like "Set" into "Set<String>",
but we're not adding new arguments, changing any
underlying (post-generics-erasure) types, etc.
Apparently this code is built using Java 1.6 under Tycho. This leads
to complaints about the Java 1.7+ "<>" generic type inference feature,
if I try to use it. Weirdly, the Eclipse GUI does not complain about
this, so apparently the Eclipse GUI is using Java 1.7 or later. I do
not understand why Tycho and the Eclipse GUI are mismatched in this
way.
There are two such diagnostics: one for collection methods and one for
equals(). See
<https://www.eclipse.org/eclipse/news/4.7/jdt.php#unlikely-argument-types>
for more information about these two new diagnostics.
For each of these diagnostics, I've set the severity level to
"warning" in projects that have some instances of the suspicious code,
or to "error" in projects that have no instances of the suspicious
code.
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.
Often the easiest way to create a desired test scenario is to write
code that would make no sense in a complete, realistic application.
So we generally want to let test code do oddball things.
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.
Fixing these Javadoc comments would require adding packages to various
other packages' build paths. In some of the cases suppressed,
changing build paths in that manner would create circular build
dependencies. In other cases, it would simply add a Javadoc-motivated
dependency that does not exist for the real code, which seems
undesirable. For a few cases, the reference seems to be to types in
code we don't even have here, such as code from "android" or
"org.mozilla" packages.
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.
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.
Some of these might have proper DTDs or XML Schema definitions
floating around somewhere that we could use. Presumably many do not.
Rather than hand-craft such definitions myself, I'm just giving each a
minimal stub DOCTYPE declaration. That's enough to satisfy Eclipse's
XML validator, which otherwise complains that these files lack grammar
constraints.
Manu Sridharan
Ben Liblit
Julian Dolby
Martin Hecker