Fix UnusedVariable false positives for private record parameters #3837
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@cushon, are the changes ok like this or do you want anything changed? |
cushon
requested changes
Aug 9, 2023
| // to contain usage in that case, but parameter is always used implicitly | ||
| // For compact canonical constructor parameters don't have record flag so need to | ||
| // check constructor flags (`symbol.owner`) instead | ||
| if (hasRecordFlag(symbol) || hasRecordFlag(symbol.owner)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are there any cases where hasRecordFlag(symbol) is true but hasRecordFlag(symbol.owner) isn't?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you asking if this could be simplified to only check hasRecordFlag(symbol.owner)?
It looks like the tests still pass if I locally remove the additional hasRecordFlag(symbol) check, should I change this then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you asking if this could be simplified to only check
hasRecordFlag(symbol.owner)?
Yes
It looks like the tests still pass if I locally remove the additional
hasRecordFlag(symbol)check, should I change this then?
I think so, unless you suspect there might be cases where checking both is necessary?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
unless you suspect there might be cases where checking both is necessary?
I am not aware of any; have changed it now to only check symbol.owner.
core/src/test/java/com/google/errorprone/bugpatterns/UnusedVariableTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
cushon
approved these changes
Aug 15, 2023
cushon
approved these changes
Aug 15, 2023
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2023
Fixes #2713 It looks like the tree emitted by the compiler is incomplete for the canonical constructor of a record, which is why the parameters were erroneously flagged as unused. Apparently this only affected `private` record classes because for them the implicit canonical constructor is `private` as well, and the `UnusedVariable` check treats parameters of `private` methods and constructors differently. #2713 (comment) showed an example where this also affected record fields, however I was unable to reproduce that. Maybe they were using an older Error Prone version which does not include 47da3af, their sample code is incomplete, or my test setup was incorrect. Edit: It looks like they were using an older Error Prone version, see #2713 (comment). Fixes #3837 FUTURE_COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#3837 from Marcono1234:record-unused-param-false-positives 4535778 PiperOrigin-RevId: 557194050
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2023
Fixes #2713 It looks like the tree emitted by the compiler is incomplete for the canonical constructor of a record, which is why the parameters were erroneously flagged as unused. Apparently this only affected `private` record classes because for them the implicit canonical constructor is `private` as well, and the `UnusedVariable` check treats parameters of `private` methods and constructors differently. #2713 (comment) showed an example where this also affected record fields, however I was unable to reproduce that. Maybe they were using an older Error Prone version which does not include 47da3af, their sample code is incomplete, or my test setup was incorrect. Edit: It looks like they were using an older Error Prone version, see #2713 (comment). Fixes #3837 FUTURE_COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#3837 from Marcono1234:record-unused-param-false-positives 4535778 PiperOrigin-RevId: 557197001
copybara-service bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2023
Fixes #2713 It looks like the tree emitted by the compiler is incomplete for the canonical constructor of a record, which is why the parameters were erroneously flagged as unused. Apparently this only affected `private` record classes because for them the implicit canonical constructor is `private` as well, and the `UnusedVariable` check treats parameters of `private` methods and constructors differently. #2713 (comment) showed an example where this also affected record fields, however I was unable to reproduce that. Maybe they were using an older Error Prone version which does not include 47da3af, their sample code is incomplete, or my test setup was incorrect. Edit: It looks like they were using an older Error Prone version, see #2713 (comment). Fixes #3837 FUTURE_COPYBARA_INTEGRATE_REVIEW=#3837 from Marcono1234:record-unused-param-false-positives 4535778 PiperOrigin-RevId: 557197001
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #2713
It looks like the tree emitted by the compiler is incomplete for the canonical constructor of a record, which is why the parameters were erroneously flagged as unused. Apparently this only affected
privaterecord classes because for them the implicit canonical constructor isprivateas well, and theUnusedVariablecheck treats parameters ofprivatemethods and constructors differently.#2713 (comment) showed an example where this also affected record fields, however I was unable to reproduce that. Maybe they were using an older Error Prone version which does not include 47da3af, their sample code is incomplete, or my test setup was incorrect.
Edit: It looks like they were using an older Error Prone version, see #2713 (comment).