Julian Dolby assures me that WALA is now supposed to be using Java 8
everywhere. This covers nearly all remaining places that I can find
where an earlier Java version was still being used. (The few
exceptions are places where switching to Java 8 causes test failures.
I'll address those separately, probably by reaching out to the WALA
maintainers for help.)
This fixes two Eclipse Plug-in Development warnings of the form "The
'javacProjectSettings' build entry should be set when there are
project specific compiler settings".
This removes three Eclipse Plug-in Development warnings of the form
"This plug-in does not export all of its packages"
I assume that omitting some exports is OK, because apparently nothing
else fails to build against these. If an omitted export were needed
elsewhere, something would fail to build.
In Eclipse projects that currently have no definite or potential
resource leaks, treat any such diagnostics as errors in the future.
In `com.ibm.wala.core`, enable warnings about definite or potential
resource leaks. Previously these diagnostics were turned off entirely
in this project. So we actually end up with more warnings now than we
had before, but they are all warnings we should eventually look into.
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 5 such warnings. That's not very many, but it
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 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.
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.
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 regular application code, these warnings should be taken seriously
and fixed. But for test code, it's better to keep things simple and
not add any methods that aren't strictly needed by the test.
In the `com.ibm.wala.util` project, configure Eclipse to treat any
future violations of this as errors, not merely warnings.
However, in `com.ibm.wala.cast.java.test.data`, configure Eclipse to
silently ignore missing @Override annotations. The JLex code in this
project is machine-generated, and we don't have a way to get the
generator to produce @Override annotations.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
Note: some of these methods are decidedly nontrivial. Perhaps they
should not actually be removed? If any should be kept around, please
identify them to me. I'll revise this change to retain those methods
and simply annotate them as needed to suppress Eclipse's warning.
Ben Liblit
Julian Dolby
Manu Sridharan
Manu Sridharan
Caius Brindescu